ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Category: ACTS

  • CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Duty Recovery in Naphthalene Import Dispute

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Duty Recovery in Naphthalene Import Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Duty Recovery in Naphthalene Import Dispute

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has delivered a judgment that underscores the importance of adhering to legal principles in customs enforcement. The case involved appeals filed by M/s LRC Speciality Chemicals Pvt Ltd, M/s Silicon Carbide Grinding Mills Pvt Ltd, and Appellant, challenging the confiscation of imported naphthalene and the subsequent recovery of duties foregone. ​ The tribunal’s decision, pronounced on October 1, 2025, has set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

    Background of the Case

    The appellants had imported naphthalene under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) for manufacturing and exporting specific products. ​ However, customs authorities alleged that portions of the imported goods were diverted for domestic use and transferred between the appellants, violating the conditions of the exemption notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This led to the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the imposition of fines and recovery of duties under Section 125 of the Act. ​

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad Strikes Down Interest, Penalty, and Redemption Fine on IGST for Pre-Import Condition Violations

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Strikes Down Interest, Penalty, and Redemption Fine on IGST for Pre-Import Condition Violations

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.10.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Strikes Down Interest, Penalty, and Redemption Fine on IGST for Pre-Import Condition Violations

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Chiripal Poly Films Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. This decision, pronounced on July 23, 2024, has far-reaching implications for importers operating under the Advance Authorization Scheme and sheds light on the legal framework surrounding the levy of interest, penalties, and redemption fines under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the alleged violation of the “pre-import condition” by Chiripal Poly Films Ltd. during imports made under the Advance Authorization Scheme between October 13, 2017, and January 9, 2019. ​ The company had availed exemptions from Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) under Notification No. ​ 18/2015-Cus, as amended by Notification No. ​ 79/2017-Cus. However, the “pre-import condition” was later challenged in courts, leading to a protracted legal battle. ​

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated April 28, 2023, upheld the validity of the “pre-import condition” but allowed importers to pay IGST retrospectively and claim input tax credit (ITC) or refunds. ​ Following this, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued Circular No. ​ 16/2023-Cus, directing importers to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.

    Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi- Procedural Lapse in Filing Returns Does Not Warrant Penalty Under Customs Act

    CESTAT Delhi- Procedural Lapse in Filing Returns Does Not Warrant Penalty Under Customs Act

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.10.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Procedural Lapse in Filing Returns Does Not Warrant Penalty Under Customs Act

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside penalties imposed on M/s Paramount Surgimed Limited for alleged procedural lapses in filing quarterly returns under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017. This decision, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), highlights the distinction between procedural non-compliance and deliberate contravention of legal provisions, offering valuable insights for importers and businesses availing exemption benefits under customs law.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Paramount Surgimed Limited, an importer availing exemption under Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Cus., was penalized for late filing of quarterly returns for multiple quarters between July 2017 and March 2019. The penalties, totaling Rs. 1,75,000, were imposed under Section 158 of the Customs Act, 1962, for contravention of Rule 6(3) of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017. The appellant challenged the penalties, arguing that the alleged non-compliance was purely procedural and lacked any intent to evade revenue or commit fraud.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Broker License Revocation Due to Procedural Delays

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Broker License Revocation Due to Procedural Delays

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Broker License Revocation Due to Procedural Delays

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside the revocation of the customs broker license of M/s M D Ruparel & Sons. The case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural timelines under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) and underscores the balance between regulatory compliance and fairness in administrative proceedings. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s M D Ruparel & Sons, a licensed customs broker, faced allegations of misconduct under Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018. ​ The charges stemmed from their alleged involvement in forging “factory stuffing permissions” to facilitate ineligible drawback claims amounting to β‚Ή49.56 crore. ​ The Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, revoked their license, forfeited their security deposit, and imposed a penalty of β‚Ή50,000. ​ However, the customs broker appealed the decision, citing procedural lapses and delays in the inquiry process.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has delivered a favorable judgment for the National Sports Club of India (NSCI) in the Customs Appeal No. 88657 of 2014. ​ The case revolved around the importation of SVPS Chillers and the applicability of customs exemptions under Notification No. ​ 21/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012. ​

    Background of the Case

    The NSCI had filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of SVPS Chillers, classifying the goods under CTH 84198940 and claiming the benefit of the aforementioned notification. ​ However, upon verification, customs authorities determined that the exemption was not applicable, as it was limited to packaged commodities meant for retail sale under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. ​ Consequently, the goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with a redemption fine of Rs. ​ 10,00,000 and a penalty of Rs. ​ 5,00,000 imposed under Section 112(a). ​ The NSCI appealed the decision, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and further invoked Section 111(o) for the first time, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Quashes DRI-Issued Show Cause Notice

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes DRI-Issued Show Cause Notice

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.10.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes DRI-Issued Show Cause Notice

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Regional Bench, has set aside an order demanding differential duty from M/s Beriwala Impex Pvt. Ltd. The case revolved around the authority of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers to issue Show Cause Notices (SCNs) under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision reaffirms the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in the Canon India case and sheds light on the scope of powers exercised by DRI officers under the Customs Act. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s Beriwala Impex Pvt. ​ Ltd. imported LDPE re-processed granules through various ports, including Kolkata, Chennai, and ICD Tughlakabad. ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged undervaluation of the imported goods, leading to a short levy of customs duty. ​ Following an investigation, the DRI issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) demanding differential duty of Rs. ​ 96,42,062, along with interest, confiscation of goods, and penalties. ​

    The appellant challenged the SCN, arguing that DRI officers were not “proper officers” under Section 28 of the Customs Act, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. ​ Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Upholds Correct Classification and Valuation of Imported Goods

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds Correct Classification and Valuation of Imported Goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.10.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds Correct Classification and Valuation of Imported Goods

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, Principal Bench, has ruled in favor of M/s Simpex Industries in Customs Appeal No. 50071 of 2025. ​ The appeal challenged the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi, which had reclassified imported goods and rejected their declared value. ​ The Tribunal’s decision, pronounced on 06.10.2025, is a significant victory for importers and reinforces the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to procedural requirements.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Simpex Industries, a regular importer of photographic equipment, filed an appeal against the Principal Commissioner’s order that:

    1. Reclassified their imported goods (LED continuous lighting equipment) from Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9006 99 00 (photographic flashlights) to CTH 9405 40 10 (lamps and lighting fittings).
    2. Rejected the declared value of Rs. ​ 22.68 crore and re-determined it as Rs. ​ 27.94 crore, citing alleged undervaluation.

    The appellant argued that the goods were correctly classified under CTH 9006 99 00 and that the declared value was accurate. ​ They relied on previous favorable orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Joint Commissioner, which had been accepted by the department.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Allahabad Quashed Penalties in Dry Dates Import Case Over Mis-Declared Origin

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashed Penalties in Dry Dates Import Case Over Mis-Declared Origin

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.10.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashed Penalties in Dry Dates Import Case Over Mis-Declared Origin

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has quashed penalties imposed on several appellants, including M/s Shakti Traders and Appellant, in a high-profile case involving the import of dry dates. The case revolved around allegations of mis-declaration of the country of origin to evade higher customs duties. ​ The Tribunal’s decision, delivered on August 30, 2024, highlights the importance of evidence-based adjudication and adherence to procedural fairness.

    Background of the Case ​

    The case stemmed from imports of dry dates by three entities: M/s Raghunath Laxminarayan, M/s B.N. ​ International, and M/s Shakti Traders. ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the importers, in connivance with Appellant, mis-declared the country of origin as the UAE instead of Pakistan to evade the 200% customs duty imposed on Pakistani-origin goods under Notification No. ​ 05/2019-Cus dated February 16, 2019. ​ The goods were classified under a lower-duty tariff heading, attracting only 20% duty. ​

    The DRI relied on several pieces of evidence, including:

    1. A report from M/s Atul Rajasthan Date Palms Limited (ARDPL) suggesting the goods were of “Indian Subcontinent” origin. ​
    2. Statements from related parties recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​
    3. Alleged non-compliance with Food Safety and Standards (Packing and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. ​
    4. Export declarations obtained from the shipping line, which mentioned “PK” (Pakistan) as the country of origin. ​

    Based on these findings, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow, ordered the confiscation of goods and imposed hefty penalties on the importers and Appellant.

    Source: CESTAT Allahabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Ruled on Provisional Release of Gold Dore Bars Amid Import Dispute

    CESTAT Delhi Ruled on Provisional Release of Gold Dore Bars Amid Import Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.10.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Ruled on Provisional Release of Gold Dore Bars Amid Import Dispute

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Tasha Gold Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. ​ This case revolved around the provisional release of 27 gold dore bars imported by the appellant, which were seized by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on allegations of non-compliance with import conditions.

    Background of the Case

    Tasha Gold Pvt. ​ Ltd., a refinery, imported 27 gold dore bars under a valid import license issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The import was made under the preferential tariff scheme of Notification No. ​ 96/2008-Cus., as the goods originated from the Republic of Rwanda, a Lesser Developed Country (LDC). ​ However, the DRI seized the consignment, citing alleged violations of Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Cus., including:

    1. One gold dore bar weighing less than the prescribed 5 kg. ​
    2. Doubts over the genuineness of the assay certificate. ​
    3. Gold content in some bars marginally exceeding the permissible 95% purity. ​

    The appellant sought provisional release of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, but their request was denied by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. ​ Aggrieved, the appellant approached the CESTAT.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside RSP Re-determination in Ceramic Tiles

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside RSP Re-determination in Ceramic Tiles

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside RSP Re-determination in Ceramic Tiles

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside the recovery of differential duty and penalties imposed on M/s Padma Ceramics Pvt Ltd, M/s RAS International, and their director, in connection with the import of ceramic tiles. The case, which revolved around the alleged under-reporting of the retail selling price (RSP) of imported goods, highlights critical aspects of customs law and the limits of authority vested in customs officers. ​

    Background of the Case

    The proceedings stemmed from the import of ceramic tiles between June 2003 and September 2005. ​ The Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, had passed orders imposing duty liabilities of β‚Ή44,66,124 on M/s Padma Ceramics Pvt Ltd and β‚Ή98,48,522 on M/s RAS International under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ Additionally, penalties of β‚Ή10,00,000 and β‚Ή20,00,000 were imposed on Appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The goods were also held liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The crux of the case was the allegation that the appellants had under-reported the RSP of the imported tiles, which formed the basis for calculating the additional duty of customs under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ The customs authorities argued that subsequent evidence revealed higher prices at which the tiles were sold to consumers, justifying the recovery of differential duty.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com