OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEAL)

Avas Corporate Point, Makwana Lane, Andheri Kurla Road, Behind SM Centre,
Andheri E Mumbai 400059

____________ of 2023
University of Mumbai,
Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai 400032 Appellant

VERSUS

Additional Commissioner of Customs(I),

Office of the Commissioner of Customs,
Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Andheri (E),
Mumbai – 400 099 Respondent

INDEX
Sr. No. Particulars Pages Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
 APPEAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 129 OF THE CUSTOMS
ACT, 1962

I. INTRODUCTION
Background and Overview

A. The present appeal arises from an order dated [Date] issued by the adjudicating authority under
the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The said order pertains to the classification and taxation
of the imported goods, namely "Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size Analyser)
with accessories," under the relevant tariff heading.

B. The appellant, the esteemed University of Mumbai, is a renowned institution registered with the
Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology. The university is actively engaged in
advancing knowledge and conducting groundbreaking research in various fields. Pursuant to its
commitment to scientific excellence, the appellant imported the aforementioned equipment for
the purpose of conducting vital research and analysis.

C. Regrettably, the impugned order classified the imported equipment under tariff heading [Incorrect
Tariff Heading]. This classification led to the imposition of differential duty, penalties, and an
order of confiscation on the imported goods. The appellant, aggrieved by this order, has
approached the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) to seek justice, rectify the classification, and
obtain relief from the undue financial burdens.

D. The crux of the appeal revolves around the erroneous classification of the imported equipment
under tariff heading [Incorrect Tariff Heading]. The appellant strongly contends that the true
technical specifications, intended use, and characteristics of the equipment align precisely with
tariff heading [Correct Tariff Heading]. The appellant recognizes the importance of the
adjudicating authority's role but asserts that the impugned order contains errors in interpretation,
application of legal provisions, and disregard for pertinent facts.

E. The appeal presented by the appellant is meticulously constructed, featuring well-reasoned

arguments, detailed legal analysis, and a review of relevant case law and precedents. The appellant
underscores the applicability of tariff heading [Correct Tariff Heading] and the eligibility for
benefits under Notification 51/96-Customs. Moreover, the appellant raises questions regarding
the imposition of penalties, the order of confiscation, and the denial of legitimate exemptions.

F. Through this appeal, the University of Mumbai implores the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) to
carefully assess the comprehensive submissions and provide the requested relief. The appellant
seeks a just and equitable interpretation of the law, combined with a profound understanding of
the scientific nature and purpose of the imported equipment, which would result in a favorable
and equitable resolution.

G. In light of the contextual details outlined above, the appellant anticipates an impartial hearing and
the eventual overturning of the impugned order. The University of Mumbai seeks to ensure that
justice prevails and the principles of fairness, accuracy, and integrity are upheld.
II. PARTIES TO THE APPEAL

1. Designation and Address of the Appellant

Applicant: Mr. Pradeep D. Kamthekar
Designation: Finance and Accounts
Address: Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort Campus, Mumbai 400032

2. Name and Address of the Respondent

Respondent: The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Address: Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Andheri (E),
Mumbai – 400 099

3. Designation and Address of the Officer Passing the Decision or Order

Officer: Shri Tapan Kumar, Additional Commissioner Customs
Address: Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Andheri (E),
Mumbai – 400 099

IV. DATE OF DECISION OR ORDER: 28.06.2023

V. DATES

Date of Order under Sub-section (2) of Section 129D: _________

Date of Communication of Order to the Adjudicating Authority: ________

VI. NATURE OF THE APPEAL

The nature of the present appeal is rooted in the determination of the correct classification of
imported goods under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Specifically, the appellant, the
University of Mumbai, challenges the classification of the imported equipment, "Malvern Zetasizer
Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size Analyser) with accessories," as per the impugned order. The
appeal underscores the importance of precise classification as it directly impacts the applicable
duties, penalties, and reliefs.

The appellant contends that the impugned order has erroneously classified the equipment under
the tariff heading [Incorrect Tariff Heading]. The appellant's primary contention is that the
equipment, given its technical specifications and intended use, falls squarely under the tariff
heading [Correct Tariff Heading]. This difference in classification has significant implications,
ranging from duty liability to penalties and even the eligibility for exemptions.

VII. JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

The jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) is derived from Section 128 of the
Customs Act, 1962, which empowers the appellate authority to hear appeals against orders passed
under Section 129A of the Act. The Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) has the authority to review
and rectify orders that are prejudicial to the appellant's interest. The jurisdiction extends to the
examination of facts, legal provisions, and interpretation of the law to ensure fairness and justice
in matters related to customs classification, assessment, and imposition of penalties.

In the present case, the University of Mumbai, being the appellant, invokes the jurisdiction of the
Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) to review the impugned order issued by the adjudicating
authority. The appellant seeks a fair and unbiased reconsideration of the classification of the
imported equipment, along with the imposition of differential duty, penalties, and an order of
confiscation. The Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) is vested with the authority to adjudicate upon
the merits of the appeal, analyze the submissions made by the appellant, and arrive at a just and
equitable decision.

VIII. RELIEF CLAIMED

The Appellant seeks appropriate relief in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Customs
Act, 1962 and the Customs (Appeal) Rules, 1982.
The Appeal is for complete relief against each of the determinations detailed in the final order. It
is requested for the nullification of all the aforementioned actions and judgments.
(i) The order for the goods imported and cleared vide bill of entry no. 4696462 dated 05.01.2018
as mentioned in SCN dated 23.12.2022 to be reclassified under CTH90318000, to be set side.
(ii) The order for demand of differential duty amounting to Rs.13,11,227/- (Thirteen Latch Eleven
Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Seven only) under Section 28(4) along with applicable interest
thereon in terms of provisions of Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is to be set aside.
(iii) The order for confiscation of the goods valued at Rs.47,27,7001- (Forty Seven Lakh Twenty
Seven Thousand Seven Hundred only) imported vide bill of entry no. 4696462 dated 05.01.2018
under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962 or the option to the Appellant to redeem the said
goods on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Only) in lieu of
confiscation under Section 125 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, be set aside.
(v) The order imposing penalty of Rs.40000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) on University of
Mumbai, under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 be set aside.
(vi) During the pendency of the ongoing Appeal, no corrosive action to be taken against the
Appellant.
(vii) Any other direction as the Hon’ble Customs Commissioner Appeal may deem fit.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Import and Description of Goods
2. Declaration and Classification Under CTH 90275090
3. Impugned Order and Reclassification Under CTH 90318000
4. Differential Duty, Redemption Fine, and Penalties Imposed

IX. STATEMENT OF FACTS

University of Mumbai, with IC number 100000029, filed a bill of entry numbered 4696462 on
January 5, 2019, seeking clearance for "Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size
Analyser) with accessories."

The declared assessable value for the imported goods was Rs. 47,27,700, and the custom broker
involved was Baba Clearing and Forwarding Private Limited.

Upon post-audit clearance, it was observed that the imported goods were cleared with Basic
Customs Duty (BCD) at a rate of 0%, rather than the appropriate classification of CTH 90318000,
which attracts a BCD rate of 7.5%. The total differential duty calculated was Rs. 13,11,227. A
consultative letter dated May 13, 2022, with reference number [reference number] was issued to
the noticee.
The show cause notice dated December 23, 2022, along with the written submission of the
importer, the University of Mumbai, and a personal hearing held on June 12, 2023, reveal that the
imported "Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size Analyser) with accessories" was
declared under CTH 90275090. The goods were imported via bill of entry no. 4696462 and cleared
at the Air Cargo Complex Sahar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400099, with Baba Clearance Agency
Private Limited acting as the Custom House Agent.

It was noted during the post-import scrutiny that the imported goods were classified under CTH
9027 and not the appropriate CTH 90318000. The latter attracts BCD at the rate of 7.5%. The
calculated differential duty on the declared value amounted to Rs. 13,11,227. Despite the issuance
of a consultative letter on May 13, 2022, no response was received from the noticee.

The principal issue in the case revolves around the proper classification of the imported goods.
The importer classified the goods under CTH 9027, while the department proposed
reclassification under CTH 90318000. CTH 9027 pertains to Instruments and Apparatus for
Physical or Chemical Analysis, while CTH 90318000 covers Measuring or Checking Instruments,
Appliances, and Machines not specified elsewhere in Chapter 90.

The imported goods, "Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size Analyser) with
accessories," are used to determine the size and distribution of particles in a material. They measure
parameters like particle size, zeta potential, and molecular weight, thus suggesting that CTH
90318000 is a more appropriate classification.

The importer, M/s. University of Mumbai, claimed exemption under Notification 51/96-CUS
dated July 23, 1996. However, they failed to produce the required certificate from an officer of the
rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the concerned department certifying their
eligibility for this exemption.

The issue of proper classification is central to the case. While the importer classified the goods
under CTH 9027, the department contends that CTH 90318000 is more suitable. Both these
headings are analyzed, and it is established that CTH 9027 relates to instruments and apparatus
for physical or chemical analysis, while CTH 90318000 covers measuring or checking instruments,
appliances, and machines not specified elsewhere.

Furthermore, the fact that CTH 9027 is meant for analyzing intangible attributes and CTH
90318000 is meant for measuring tangible attributes is highlighted. The imported goods are used
for measuring the parameters characterizing nanoparticles, thus making CTH 90318000 the more
appropriate classification.

The matter also involves the concept of self-assessment under the Customs Act, 1962. Importers
are responsible for declaring the correct description, value, classification, and other related details
of the imported goods. The importer's self-assessment is supported by Sections 17, 18, and 46 of
the Customs Act, 1962, as well as the Bill of Entry (Electronic Declaration) Regulation, 2011. Non-
compliance with correct self-assessment can lead to penal action.

The imported goods were claimed to fall under CTH 9027, which was a misdeclaration. As a result,
the impugned goods are deemed liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act,
1962, read in conjunction with Section 46(4) and 46(4).

The question of imposing a redemption fine under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, in
lieu of confiscation is raised. However, since the goods were already cleared for home
consumption prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, a decision on whether redemption
fine is applicable is considered.

The issue of imposing a redemption fine is explored further, taking into consideration the
importer's intent to suppress the true classification of the impugned goods. A judgment from the
Bombay High Court is cited, which indicates that goods cleared earlier and not available for
confiscation are not subject to a fine in lieu of confiscation. However, this view contrasts with a
decision from the Madras High Court.

Considering the conflicting views, it is argued that the physical availability of goods isn't a critical
factor for imposing a redemption fine. The power to impose a redemption fine is derived from
the authorization of confiscation, and physical availability isn't a determinant. Therefore, the
importer is given the option to redeem the impugned goods by paying a redemption fine.

The case also involves the imposition of penalties under various sections of the Customs Act,
1962. It is noted that the necessary conditions for invoking extended period provisions under
Section 28(4) are fulfilled due to wilful misstatement and suppression of facts by the importer.
Additionally, penalties are discussed under sections 112 and 114A.

The order concludes by settling the issue of classification in favor of the department and dismissing
the relevance of case laws cited by the importer. The order outlines the reclassification of the
imported goods, the confirmation of differential duty, confiscation of goods with an option for
redemption, and the imposition of penalties.

The order is passed without prejudice to any further actions that may be taken under the provisions
of the Customs Act, 1962, or other applicable laws.

X. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. Arbitrariness and Unsustainability of the Impugned Order
2. Failure to Consider Technical Specifications and End Use
3. Misinterpretation of the Working Principle of the Goods
4. Correct Classification Under CTH 90275090
5. Application of General Rules for Interpretation
6. Global Classification Practices and Manufacturer Invoices
7. Misinterpretation of Notification 51/96-Customs
8. Valid Certificate of Registration Issued by the Department
9. Denial of Exemptions Due to Incorrect Interpretation
10. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

X. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. At the outset, it is submitted that the impugned order is ex-facie untenable and
unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside
2. The appellant most respectfully submits that the impugned order has been passed
arbitrarily, Hence it needs to be set aside forthwith.
3. The impugned order has erred in not considering the technical specification and end use
of the equipment and thereby claiming the correct classification of it under HS code 90275090.
The submission of the appellant that, the appellant is registered with Government of India,
Ministry of Science and Technology and is entitle for benefits extended under Notification 51/96-
Customs has also been completely overlooked by the AA and infact has been interpreted in an
arbitrary manner.
4. The Adjudicating authority vide Impugned Order dated 28.06.2023 has mis-interpreted
the item “Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size Analyser) with accessories" has
straight away jumped into the inapplicable tariff heading 9031. Without going into the principles
of working of tariff item “Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size Analyser)”. the
integral functioning of the item is measuring the molecular size by DLS which works as “ The
principle of dynamic light scattering is that fine particles and molecules that are in constant random
thermal motion, called Brownian motion, diffuse at a speed related to their sixe, smaller particles
diffusing faster that larger particles. The speed of the temperature, therefore precision temperature
control is essential for accurate size measurement. To measure the diffusion speed, the speckle
pattern produced by illuminating the particles with a laser is observed. The scattering intensity at
a specific angle will fluctuate with time and this is detected using a sensitive avalanche photodiode
detector (APD). The intensity changes are analyzed with a digital auto correlator which generates
a correlation function. This curve can be analysed to give the size and the size distribution. To
produce high quality data , the zetasizer Nano serios is designed to provide optimized components
at ever state in the measurement chain form the laser and temperature control, through to the
optical design and detector.”
Further, the technique is deal for the measurement of the size of colloids, nanoparticlesa and
molecules, without requiring agitation to make the samples suitable for analysis
( Exhibit-1) here the appellant reproduce the applicable tariff heading as –
90.27 – INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS FOR PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
(FOR EXAMPLE, POLARIMETERS, REFRACTOMETERS, SPECTROMETERS, GAS OR
SMOKE ANALYSIS APPARATUSL INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS FOR
MEASURING OR CHECKING VISCOSITY, POROSITY, EXPANSION, SURFACE
TENSION OR THE LIKE; INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING OR
CHECKING QUANTITIES OF HEAT, SOUND OR LIGHT (INCLUDING EXPOSURE
METERS); MICROTOMES, IN view of the above technical specification, it is amply clear, that
the impugned goods“Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size Analyser)” is actually
Analytical instrument which is based on the dielectric constant, electrical conductivity and
absorption of electromagnetic energy. The instrument also fulfills the conditions of Explanatory
notes to chapter heading 9027 (Exhibit-2)
4(ii) Having ratio and understanding the contents of the literature, Explanatory Notes and chapter
notes to tariff heading 90.27,the the impugned goods “Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs
(Particle Size Analyser)” are classifiable under chapter heading 9027 which is specific and squarely
applicable in the impugned goods

5. The AA has completely ignored Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of
the Harmonized System which explicitly states that, the heading which provides the most specific
description shall be preferred to heading providing a more general description. the description of
the impugned goods with its functioning has been named as “Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano
Zs (Particle Size Analyser)” the description itself fits in the category of Instruments and apparatus
for physical or chemical analysis (band on IR, visible and uv light) under the tariff heading 90.27
6. The AA has also completely ignored the fact that the impugned goods “Malvern Zetasizer
Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size Analyser)”are globally classified under tariff heading 9027. The
learned Adjudicating Authority even not bothered to persue the Manufacturer invoice No.
1096174400A dated 21.09.2017 which clearly indicates the Tariff Code 9027 50 00 00 . the same
is being issued by the manufacturer as per the physical and technical specification of the
Instrument and have been globally accepted (Exhibit-3)
7. The AA under para 22.1 of the Impugned order dated 28.06.2023 has stressed on the
benefit of exemption under notification 51/96-Cus dated 23.07.1996 availed by the appellant for
the impugned goods under heading 90275090 is subject to produce a certificate to this effect from
an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the said
Department certifies. In this regard, the AA authority completely ignored the Required valid
Certificate of Registration issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research , Ministry
of Science and Technology , Government of India vide No. TU/V/RE-CDE(49)/2016 dated 28th
December, 2016 and valid upto 31.08.2021. the said certificate has been issued to the appellant
under the signature of Scientist –F/ Director who is equivalent to the Additional Secretary and is
much higher in hierarchy then Deputy Secretary ( Exhibit- 4) Further, as per Notification No.
51/96-Customs dated 23.07.1996 the only condition applicable to get the exemption was that, at
the time of importation, a certificate from the head of the institution, in each case, certifying that
the said goods are required for research purpose only. The same was never asked by the AA,
instead the appellant was asked to submit a certificate from the Deputy Secretary to Government
of India in the said department. It is humbly submitted that the only two conditions required under
the Notification no. 51/96 are that
(i) The importer should be Public funded research institution or a university or an Indian
Institute of Technology or Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore or a Regional Engineering
College, other than a hospital.
(ii) The importer produces, at the time of importation, a certificate from the head of the
institution, in each case certifying that the said goods are required for research purpose only.
8. The AA has interpreted the notification by asking for a certificate from the Deputy
Secretary in each case. i.e. He has mixed the two conditions of the notifications which has led to
the appellant denial of exemptions ; That the AA should have asked for the “Certificate from the
HOD of the institution certifying that the said goods are required for research purpose only.”
That, the same would have been produced as the same was available with the appellant. However,
since the same was never asked but a certificate on Deputy secretary to Government of India in
the said department was asked, which could not be provided, hence the AA has denied the benefits
of duty exemption. Had the AA interpreted the notification no. 51/96 correctly then the only
requirement was :
a The importer should be Public funded research institution or a university or an Indian
Institute of Technology or Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore or a Regional Engineering
College, other than a hospital.
b The importer produces, at the time of importation, a certificate from the head of the
institution, in each case certifying that the said goods are required for research purposed only.
Both of which were in possession of the appellant, the exemption could have been granted.
c It is only because of the misinterpretation by the AA that the rightful benefits have been
denied to the appellant.

XII. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS

1. Relevant Provisions of the Customs Act, 1962
2. Explanatory Notes and Chapter Notes to Tariff Heading 9027 and 9031
3. Interpretation of Notification 51/96-Customs
4. Principles of Classification and Interpretation

XII. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS

1. Relevant Provisions of the Customs Act, 1962: The Customs Act, 1962, is the governing
legislation that lays down the legal framework for the levy and collection of customs duties in
India. It provides the necessary legal provisions to determine the classification, valuation, and
assessment of imported goods. Section 129D(4) of the Customs Act allows an aggrieved party to
file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against an order passed by the adjudicating
authority. This provision empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to grant a stay on the
implementation of the order pending the final disposal of the appeal, subject to the conditions that
may be imposed.
2. Explanatory Notes and Chapter Notes to Tariff Heading 9027 and 9031: The correct
classification of goods under the Customs Tariff is essential to determine the applicable duty rate.
In the present case, the imported goods, "Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size
Analyser) with accessories," have been erroneously classified under Tariff Heading 9031 by the
adjudicating authority. However, a careful examination of the Explanatory Notes and Chapter
Notes to Tariff Headings 9027 and 9031 reveals that the classification under Tariff Heading 9027
is more accurate and appropriate for the imported goods.
3. Interpretation of Notification 51/96-Customs: The appellant availed the benefit of
exemption under Notification 51/96-Customs dated 23.07.1996. The notification grants
exemption from customs duty to public funded research institutions, universities, and certain
educational institutions when they import goods required for research purposes. The appellant
contends that the conditions stipulated in the notification have been met, and the requirement of
producing a certificate from the head of the institution, certifying that the goods are required for
research purposes only, has been fulfilled. However, the adjudicating authority's interpretation of
the notification, insisting on a certificate from the Deputy Secretary, is not aligned with the
conditions laid down in the notification.
4. Principles of Classification and Interpretation: The principles of classification and
interpretation are crucial in determining the correct classification of goods under the Customs
Tariff. The appellant asserts that the technical specifications and integral functioning of the
"Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size Analyser)" indicate that it falls within the
scope of Instruments and Apparatus for Physical or Chemical Analysis, as per Tariff Heading
9027. The appellant further emphasizes that the specific description provided in the tariff heading
should be preferred over more general descriptions.
The principles of classification are supported by the decision in [Case Name and Citation], where
[Court/Authority] granted a stay in a similar matter involving genuine doubts about the
classification of goods.

V. CASE LAWS AND PRECEDENTS

1. Relevant Case Laws and Judicial Pronouncements:
a) [Case Name 1]
• Citation: [Citation]
• Key Highlight: In this case, the [Court/Authority] ruled in favor of the appellant by
emphasizing the importance of technical specifications and integral functioning in determining the
correct classification of goods under the Customs Tariff. The court held that specific descriptions
provided in tariff headings should take precedence over more general descriptions.
b) [Case Name 2]
• Citation: [Citation]
• Key Highlight: The [Court/Authority] acknowledged the significance of correct
classification for the application of exemptions under relevant notifications. The court clarified
that fulfillment of conditions stipulated in the notification should not be undermined by
technicalities in interpreting certificate requirements.
c) [Case Name 3]
• Citation: [Citation]
• Key Highlight: The [Court/Authority] emphasized that the principles of classification and
interpretation should be guided by the technical attributes and primary function of the imported
goods. In cases involving scientific instruments, the specific functionality should be a decisive
factor in classification.
2. Application of Precedents to the Present Case:
a) The precedents established in [Case Name 1] and [Case Name 2] underscore the importance of
considering technical specifications and integral functioning when determining the classification
of goods under the Customs Tariff. These cases support the appellant's contention that the
"Malvern Zetasizer Zen 3000 Nano Zs (Particle Size Analyser)" should be classified under Tariff
Heading 9027.
b) The principle set forth in [Case Name 3] further validates the appellant's position that
classification should be guided by the primary functionality of the goods. In this case, the specific
functionality of the particle size analyzer should be the driving factor in determining its appropriate
classification.
The appellant seeks the honorable Commissioner (Appeals) to take cognizance of these case laws
and precedents while considering the classification of the imported goods and granting the
requested relief.

XIV. PRAYERS AND RELIEF

1. Set Aside the Impugned Order dated [Date]
2. Correct Classification of Goods Under CTH 90275090
3. Relief from Differential Duty and Applicable Interest
4. Overturning of Order of Confiscation and Redemption Fine
5. Annulment of Penalty Imposed Under Section 114A
6. Grant of Exemptions Under Notification 51/96-Customs

XIV. PRAYERS AND RELIEF

In light of the comprehensive arguments and analysis presented herein, the appellant respectfully
prays for the following reliefs:
1. Set Aside the Impugned Order: The appellant fervently requests the Hon'ble
Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the impugned order dated [Date] on the grounds of [elaborate
on grounds for setting aside the order].
2. Correct Classification of Goods Under CTH 90275090: The appellant implores the
Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the classification of the goods imported and
cleared under bill of entry no. 4696462 dated 05.01.2018 as mentioned in the SCN dated
23.12.2022. The appellant seeks the reclassification of these goods under CTH 90318000.
3. Relief from Differential Duty and Applicable Interest: The appellant earnestly appeals for
the nullification of the demand for differential duty, amounting to Rs.13,11,227/- (Thirteen Lakh
Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Seven only) under Section 28(4), along with applicable
interest as prescribed by Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Overturning of Order of Confiscation and Redemption Fine: The appellant fervently
requests the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the order for confiscation of the
goods valued at Rs.47,27,700/- (Forty-Seven Lakh Twenty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred only)
imported under bill of entry no. 4696462 dated 05.01.2018 under Section 111(m) of the Customs
Act 1962. Alternatively, the appellant seeks the option to redeem the said goods on payment of a
Redemption Fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Only) as an alternative to confiscation under
Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Annulment of Penalty Imposed Under Section 114A: The appellant humbly prays for the
annulment of the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, considering the
technical specification, end-use, and valid certificates in possession.
6. Grant of Exemptions Under Notification 51/96-Customs: The appellant earnestly
requests the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) to acknowledge the appellant's eligibility for
benefits under Notification 51/96-Customs dated 23.07.1996. The appellant submits that they
satisfy the conditions of the said notification and seeks the grant of relevant exemptions.
7. Any Other Relief as the Honorable Commissioner May Decide: The appellant respectfully
prays for any other relief that the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) deems fit and just in the
circumstances of the case.
8. Stay on Coercive Action: Pending the final hearing and disposal of the present matter, the
appellant humbly prays for a stay on any coercive action against the appellant. The appellant
requests the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure that no coercive action is taken during
the pendency of this appeal.
The appellant submits that the reliefs prayed for are grounded in sound legal principles, accurate
interpretation of relevant provisions, and precedents that align with the present case. It is with
sincere hope and anticipation that the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) will consider these prayers
and provide justice in line with the merits of the case.

IX. CONCLUSION
1. Summary of Key Arguments and Relief Sought
2. Request for Fair Hearing and Reversal of Impugned Order
3. Gratitude and Acknowledgment of the Appellate Authority's Time

XV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the appellant respectfully submits that the impugned order dated [Date] is replete
with errors in interpretation, application of legal provisions, and disregard for relevant facts. The
arguments and analysis presented herein have demonstrated the unjust classification of the goods
in question, the erroneous imposition of penalties, and the misinterpretation of the applicable
notifications and legal provisions.
1. Summary of Key Arguments and Relief Sought: The appellant has extensively detailed the
technical specifications and end-use of the goods, the correct classification under CTH 90275090,
and the eligibility for exemptions under Notification 51/96-Customs. The appellant has diligently
argued against each ground of appeal, provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions,
precedents, and case laws. The appellant seeks the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside
the impugned order, correct the classification of the goods, provide relief from differential duty
and applicable interest, overturn the order of confiscation and redemption fine, annul the penalty
imposed under Section 114A, grant exemptions under Notification 51/96-Customs, and any other
relief deemed fit by the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Request for Fair Hearing and Reversal of Impugned Order: The appellant humbly requests
the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) to review the comprehensive submissions presented in this
appeal. The arguments, legal interpretations, and case laws conclusively support the appellant's
contention that the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the rightful reliefs ought to be
granted.
3. Gratitude and Acknowledgment of the Appellate Authority's Time: The appellant wishes
to express sincere gratitude for the time, effort, and consideration given by the Hon'ble
Commissioner (Appeals) in reviewing this appeal. The appellant places utmost trust in the wisdom
and fairness of the appellate authority in rendering a just and equitable decision that aligns with
the merits of the case.
4. With optimism and anticipation, the appellant fervently hopes for a positive resolution to
this matter. The principles of justice, accurate interpretation of legal provisions, and fairness in
administration are pivotal to ensuring a just outcome.
XVI. ANNEXURES
1. Annexure I: Copy of the Impugned Order dated [Date]
2. Annexure II: Technical Specification and Functioning Details of the Goods
3. Annexure III: Manufacturer Invoice No. [Invoice Number] dated [Invoice Date]
4. Annexure IV: Certificate of Registration from the Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research
5. Annexure V: Explanatory Notes to Chapter Heading 9027 and 9031
6. Annexure VI: Relevant Sections and Rules from the Customs Act, 1962
7. Annexure VII: Other Supporting Documents and Correspondences