Category: ACTS

  • CBIC Notifies Amendments to Entrustment of Powers under Section 110

    CBIC Notifies Amendments to Entrustment of Powers under Section 110

    Date: 17.10.2025

    On October 1, 2025, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issued Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T. ​), introducing amendments to the earlier notification [No. ​ 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​]. This notification, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), brings significant changes to the Customs Act, 1962, particularly concerning Section 110 and its sub-sections. In this blog, we will delve into the details of the notification, explore the relevant sections of the Customs Act, and discuss case law related to Section 110.

    Key Highlights of Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​

    The notification amends the principal notification [No. ​ 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​], which was originally published on March 31, 2022, and subsequently amended multiple times. ​ The latest amendments are as follows:

    1. Amendments to Serial Number 6:
      • In column (3), item (vi) and its entries have been substituted with: “(vi) Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110”. ​
    2. Amendments to Serial Number 7:
      • In column (3), item (xiv) and its entries have been substituted with: “(xiv) Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110”. ​

    These changes clarify the applicability of specific sub-sections of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with the seizure of goods, documents, and things. ​

    Comparative Table: Notification No. 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​ vs Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​

    AspectNotification No. 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​
    Date of Notification ​March 31, 2022 ​October 1, 2025 ​
    PurposeOriginal notification issued to define the powers and functions of customs officers under the Customs Act.Amends specific provisions of Notification No. ​ 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​ to update the applicability of Section 110.
    Amendments to Serial No. ​ 6Item (vi) referred to certain sub-sections of Section 110. ​Item (vi) updated to include Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110. ​
    Amendments to Serial No. ​ 7Item (xiv) referred to certain sub-sections of Section 110. ​Item (xiv) updated to include Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110. ​
    Focus AreaGeneral provisions related to customs officers and their powers.Specific focus on the seizure provisions under Section 110 and the role of proper officers. ​
    Referenced SectionsSections 3, 4, 5, and 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.Sections 3, 4, 5, and updated sub-sections of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    Effective DateMarch 31, 2022 ​October 1, 2025 ​
    Subsequent AmendmentsAmended via notifications S.O. ​ 1601(E) (April 4, 2022), S.O. ​ 3186(E) (July 14, 2022), and S.O. ​ 5773(E) (December 10, 2022). ​Latest amendment introduced through Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T. ​).

    Circular No. ​ 07/2022-Customs

    The Circular No. ​ 07/2022-Customs, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, on March 31, 2022, outlines amendments to the Customs Act, 1962, introduced through the Finance Act, 2022. ​ Key changes include modifications to Section 2(34) for assigning functions to customs officers, inclusion of officers from DRI, Audit, and Preventive formations under Section 3, and the insertion of new sub-sections (1A), (1B), (4), and (5) under Section 5 to clarify the assignment of functions and jurisdiction. A new Section 110AA has been added to ensure that the original officer retains jurisdiction for further actions after inquiries or audits.

    Understanding Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 ​

    Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, outlines the provisions related to the seizure of goods, documents, and other items by customs authorities. The relevant sub-sections are as follows:

    • Sub-section (1): Empowers a proper officer to seize goods, documents, or things if there is a reasonable belief that they are liable for confiscation under the Customs Act.
    • Sub-section (3): Specifies the procedure for issuing a notice to the owner of the seized goods, requiring them to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated.
    • Sub-section (5): Provides the conditions under which seized goods may be released provisionally to the owner, subject to furnishing a bond or security.

    These provisions ensure that customs authorities can take necessary action against goods suspected of violating customs laws while safeguarding the rights of the owners.

    Sub-section (34) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 ​

    Sub-section (34) of Section 2 defines the term “proper officer”. It states: “Proper officer”, in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs.”

    This definition is crucial as it determines the authority of customs officers to act under various provisions of the Customs Act, including Section 110.

    Overview of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Customs Act, 1962

    1. Section 3: Officers of Customs This section specifies the classes of officers of customs, including Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Joint Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, and other officers. It establishes the hierarchy and roles within the customs department.
    2. Section 4: Appointment of Officers of Customs Under this section, the Central Government is empowered to appoint officers of customs. It also allows the government to authorize certain officers to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of customs officers.
    3. Section 5: Powers of Officers of Customs ​ Section 5 outlines the powers of customs officers, which include exercising authority under the Customs Act. ​ Sub-sections (1A), (4), and (5) of this section were referenced in the recent notification, emphasizing the delegation of powers to proper officers for specific functions. ​

    Case Law Related to Section 110: Proper Officer and Seizure of Goods

    In M/s. Nikom Copper and Conductors Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, the petitioner challenged the seizure of imported copper goods by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), alleging the seizure was illegal and lacked “reason to believe” as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act. ​ Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the seizure memo and declaring the cancellation of amendments to the bills of entry invalid due to procedural violations. The Court ordered the release of the goods to the petitioner upon payment of duties and completion of formalities. ​

    Conclusion

    The recent amendments introduced by Notification No. ​ 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​ aim to streamline the application of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, by specifying the relevant sub-sections. ​ These changes reinforce the role of proper officers in ensuring compliance with customs laws while safeguarding the rights of individuals. Additionally, the provisions under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Customs Act provide a robust framework for the appointment and empowerment of customs officers.​

    Handy Download:

  • “Decoding Classification: The Case of Samsung’s Wired Remote Controllers Under Customs Tariff Act”

    “Decoding Classification: The Case of Samsung’s Wired Remote Controllers Under Customs Tariff Act”

    Date: 17.10.2025

    Case Summary: The case involves Samsung India Electronics Private Limited seeking an advance ruling on the classification of “Wired Remote Controllers” for air-conditioning systems under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ The applicant proposed classification under Heading 8537 10 90 as “Electrical Control Console,” while the Department argued for classification under Heading 8415 90 00 as “Parts” of air-conditioning machines.

    Handy Download:

  • “Advance Ruling Authority- Classification of Forklift Drive Train as Essential Component under Customs Tariff Act, 1975”

    “Advance Ruling Authority- Classification of Forklift Drive Train as Essential Component under Customs Tariff Act, 1975”

    Date: 17.10.2025

    ​​ ​​

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai Allows Refund Claim Despite Procedural Lapse in Compliance with Customs Notification

    CESTAT Chennai Allows Refund Claim Despite Procedural Lapse in Compliance with Customs Notification

    Date: 16.10.2025

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, recently addressed a dispute involving M/s. ​ N.R. Colours Ltd. and the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. ​The case revolved around the rejection of a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Customs. The Tribunal’s decision sheds light on the interpretation of procedural compliance and the broader principles of justice in refund claims.

    M/s. N.R. Colours Ltd. filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,10,795/- on February 26, 2014, under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, which allows for the refund of 4% SAD paid on imported goods, provided certain conditions are met. The claim pertained to the import of goods such as “Pentacrythritol Mono Grade, MHEC, and Re-dispersable Emulsion Powder” under seven bills of entry. ​

    The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and subsequently by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) on the grounds that the sales invoices submitted by the appellant did not contain the mandatory endorsement as required under para 2(b) of the notification. ​ This endorsement states that “no credit of Additional Duty of Customs shall be admissible” on the goods sold.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Over Invoicing

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Over Invoicing

    Date: 15.10.2025

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has delivered justice to exporters M/s Shree Venkateswara Exports and M/s Surya Jyoti Global Logistics by setting aside penalties and redemption fines imposed under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around allegations of over-invoicing export goods to claim inadmissible drawback benefits, but the Tribunal found no substantial evidence to support these claims. ​

    The dispute originated from the export of readymade garments by M/s Shree Venkateswara Exports through Customs Broker M/s Surya Jyoti Global Logistics. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the goods were overvalued to claim excessive drawback benefits. ​ Following investigations, the goods were confiscated, and penalties totaling Rs. ​ 22,21,267/- were imposed on both appellants, along with a redemption fine of Rs. ​ 66,63,800/-. The appellants challenged the Order-in-Original passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida, citing procedural lapses, lack of evidence, and violation of natural justice.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi- Royalty Payments Not Includible in Transaction Value of Imported Goods

    CESTAT Delhi- Royalty Payments Not Includible in Transaction Value of Imported Goods

    Date: 15.10.2025

    On October 14, 2025, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. ​ Ericsson India Private Limited vs. Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. ​ This decision, which involved three appeals (Customs Appeal Nos. 50439, 50440, and 50441 of 2021), has far-reaching implications for the inclusion of royalty payments in the transaction value of imported goods under customs law.

    Ericsson India, a wholly-owned subsidiary of LM Ericsson Sweden, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of telecom equipment such as Radio Base Stations, Mobile Switching Centers, and Base Station Controllers. ​ The company imports components from its related foreign supplier, Ericsson Sweden, and pays royalties to LM Ericsson Sweden for technical know-how under a Technical Co-Operation Agreement. ​ The dispute arose when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the royalty payments made by Ericsson India to LM Ericsson Sweden should be included in the transaction value of the imported components under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of the Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. ​ The DRI also imposed penalties on Ericsson India and two of its executives, Tej Nirmal Singh and Bharat Bandhu, under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Penalty on Courier Company

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Penalty on Courier Company

    Date: 15.10.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the appeals filed by Bombino Express Pvt. ​ Ltd. and its Director, against penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone III. ​ This decision, pronounced on October 7, 2025, marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of penal provisions under the Customs Act, 1962.

    The case originated from allegations of mis-declaration and undervaluation of goods imported through courier mode by M/s. ​ Smashing Traders Pvt. ​ Ltd., facilitated by Bombino Express Pvt. ​ Ltd. Investigations revealed discrepancies between the declared value of goods and their actual value, leading to penalties being imposed on Bombino Express Pvt. ​ Ltd. and Appellant under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The penalties were based on claims that Bombino Express and Appellant were complicit in the smuggling activities orchestrated by M/s. ​ Smashing Traders Pvt. ​ Ltd. and its mastermind, Mr. Kuo Leong. ​ The authorities alleged that Bombino Express knowingly facilitated the clearance of undervalued goods and that Appellant was involved in the procurement and dispatch of these goods.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Duty Demand Over DFIA License Misuse Allegations

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Duty Demand Over DFIA License Misuse Allegations

    Date: 14.10.2025

    In a significant legal development, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a landmark judgment on October 13, 2025, in favor of M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. Ltd. and its Director. ​ The case revolved around the alleged misuse of Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) licenses for importing epoxy resin under the guise of impregnating resin. ​

    The case originated from a show-cause notice (SCN) issued by the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on January 29, 2015. The SCN alleged that M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. ​ Ltd. had fraudulently imported epoxy resin under DFIA licenses issued to Kanpur-based leather exporters. ​ The DRI claimed that the DFIA licenses permitted the import of impregnating resin, not epoxy resin, and accused the importer of misdeclaring the goods to claim duty exemptions under Notification No. ​ 98/2009-Customs dated September 11, 2009. ​

    The Joint Commissioner upheld the allegations in the SCN, confirming a demand of differential duty amounting to β‚Ή33,29,154, along with applicable interest and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) later upheld this decision, leading the appellants to file an appeal with the CESTAT.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Mumbai- Customs Cannot Enhance Value Without Contemporaneous Data

    CESTAT Mumbai- Customs Cannot Enhance Value Without Contemporaneous Data

    Date: 14.10.2025

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, delivered a judgment on October 9, 2025, providing relief to Artex Textile Pvt Ltd in a series of customs appeals. The case revolved around the reassessment of imported polyester fabrics under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the denial of benefits under the exemption notification for additional duty of customs. ​ This decision has far-reaching implications for importers and the interpretation of customs valuation rules and exemption notifications. ​

    Artex Textile Pvt Ltd, an importer of polyester fabrics, faced enhanced assessable values imposed by the proper officer under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The reassessment was challenged by the importer, citing procedural lapses under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. ​ Additionally, the denial of exemption benefits under Notification No. 30/2004-Central Excise was contested.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Bangalore- Clerical Error in Shipping Bill Not a Ground for Confiscation or Penalty

    CESTAT Bangalore- Clerical Error in Shipping Bill Not a Ground for Confiscation or Penalty

    Date: 14.10.2025

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on M/s. Avasarala Technologies Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). ​ The case revolved around alleged discrepancies in the export of engineering equipment, specifically parts of rubber processing machines. ​ The judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between clerical errors and intentional misdeclarations in export documentation. ​

    The appellant, Avasarala Technologies Ltd., had filed three shipping bills for the export of parts of rubber processing machines. ​ During the examination of goods, discrepancies were noted in two shipping bills (Nos. ​ 4375372 and 4375056). ​ Against the declared 43 sets of parts, only 15 sets were found, resulting in a shortage of 28 sets. Additionally, a weight discrepancy of 353 kgs was observed. ​ This led to the issuance of a show-cause notice proposing confiscation of goods under Section 113(h)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the imposition of penalties under Section 114(iii). ​

    The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods valued at Rs. ​ 12,98,464, imposed a fine of Rs. ​ 3 lakhs in lieu of confiscation, and levied a penalty of Rs. ​ 2 lakhs. ​ The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

    Handy Download: