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: Ministry of Finance

  • CESTAT Delhi- Related-Party Imports Alone Cannot Justify Rejection of Declared Value

    CESTAT Delhi- Related-Party Imports Alone Cannot Justify Rejection of Declared Value

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 03.11.2026

    CESTAT Delhi- Related-Party Imports Alone Cannot Justify Rejection of Declared Value

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has allowed the appeals of Diyas Mantra Lighting Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, ruling that Customs had not established that the company’s relationship with its UK supplier influenced the declared import prices.

    Background of the dispute

    The case arose from imports of electric decorative lighting fixtures under the brands β€œDiyas” and β€œmAntra.” Diyas Mantra Lighting Pvt. Ltd. filed a bill of entry at ICD Tughlakabad on 21 January 2015 for clearance of a consignment valued at Rs. 19.01 lakh.

    Customs alleged that the importer had not declared the brands on its import documents and had undervalued the goods to reduce customs duty. The department also examined earlier imports and contended that the company’s UK supplier, Inspired Lighting Ltd., was a related party.

    The department relied on several circumstances to support its case, including common directorship and shareholding involving Anil Kumar Anand, financial dealings between the entities, and catalogue references identifying Diyas Mantra as the India office of the UK supplier’s brand.

    Earlier proceedings and Supreme Court remand

    In the original adjudication, Customs rejected the declared value of the live consignment and 20 earlier bills of entry. It re-determined the assessable value using a deductive method based on domestic sale prices, imposed differential duty, ordered confiscation, levied redemption fines, and imposed penalties on the importer and its directors.

    CESTAT initially upheld that decision in 2017. However, the Supreme Court set aside both the original Customs order and CESTAT’s earlier ruling in April 2019. It held that the Customs Valuation Rules require a sequential approach:

    • First, authorities must assess whether transaction value can be accepted under Rule 3.
    • If it cannot, they must examine identical goods under Rule 4 and similar goods under Rule 5.
    • Only after those methods are unavailable may they proceed to later valuation methods, including deductive valuation under Rules 7 to 9.

    The Supreme Court observed that data from non-related suppliers in China and Spain could be relevant to the valuation exercise, subject to appropriate adjustments.

    Customs’ de novo order

    After remand, Customs again held that the UK supplier and Diyas Mantra were related parties and that the relationship had influenced prices. It rejected the declared values for the live consignment and 13 past UK bills of entry.

    The de novo order:

    • Re-determined the live consignment’s value from Rs. 19.01 lakh to Rs. 52.22 lakh.
    • Re-determined the value of 13 earlier UK imports from Rs. 2.16 crore to Rs. 4.46 crore.
    • Confirmed differential duty of Rs. 9.53 lakh for the live shipment and Rs. 74.85 lakh for the past UK imports.
    • Imposed redemption fines of Rs. 10 lakh and Rs. 89 lakh in relation to the goods.
    • Imposed equivalent penalties on the company under Section 114A of the Customs Act.
    • Imposed penalties of Rs. 10 lakh each on directors Rahul Mehta and Anil Kumar Anand under Section 112(b).

    At the same time, Customs dropped a differential-duty demand of Rs. 48.41 lakh concerning seven imports from Spain and China, finding no evidence that those suppliers were related to the importer.

    CESTAT’s reasoning

    CESTAT found that, even if the importer and the UK supplier were related, that fact alone did not justify rejection of the transaction value. Under Rule 3(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, Customs needed to establish that the relationship actually affected the price.

    The Tribunal noted a central inconsistency in the department’s case: Customs accepted the transaction values for comparable goods imported from unrelated suppliers in Spain and China, but did not demonstrate how the UK prices were distorted by the related-party relationship.

    The Tribunal emphasized that the declared transaction value is normally the basis for customs assessment. To reject it, the department must provide cogent evidence that the declared price is not genuine or that the relationship affected pricing. Mere suspicion, related-party status, or assertions of possible financial flow-back are insufficient without a demonstrated impact on the import price.

    CESTAT also relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier direction that the valuation rules must be applied sequentially. It held that Customs could not move to a deductive valuation method under Rules 7 and 9 without adequately establishing why Rules 3 to 5 could not support the assessment.

    Final outcome

    CESTAT set aside the entire adverse order against Diyas Mantra Lighting Pvt. Ltd. and its directors. Specifically, it:

    • Accepted the declared value for the live consignment covered by Bill of Entry No. 8059523 dated 21 January 2015.
    • Set aside the re-determination of value for the UK imports.
    • Set aside the differential-duty demand and related interest.
    • Set aside confiscation of the live shipment and goods seized from the importer’s godown.
    • Set aside redemption fines.
    • Set aside penalties imposed on the importer under Section 114A.
    • Set aside personal penalties imposed on the two directors under Section 112(b).

    The appeals were allowed by Final Order Nos. 51642-51644/2026, pronounced on 29 October 2026.

    Key legal takeaway for importers

    The ruling reinforces that a related-party relationship does not automatically invalidate an import transaction value. Customs must establish, with evidence, that the relationship influenced the price. Where comparable imports from unrelated suppliers are available and accepted, authorities must meaningfully address that evidence before rejecting the declared value or resorting to alternative valuation methods.

    For customs valuation disputes, the decision underlines two important safeguards: transaction value remains the primary method of valuation, and the Customs Valuation Rules must be applied in their prescribed sequence.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Telangana High Court Quashes Customs Confiscation of Used MFD Imports

    Telangana High Court Quashes Customs Confiscation of Used MFD Imports

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 02.11.2026

    Telangana High Court Quashes Customs Confiscation of Used MFD Imports

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Telangana High Court has ruled that a later amendment imposing a 100-unit-per-model annual threshold could not be used to confiscate Arka Business Solutions’ consignment of used multi-function devices (MFDs) imported before that amendment took effect.

    Background of the dispute

    Arka Business Solutions, an importer and seller of used digital multi-function devices, imported 73 used MFDs from the United States. The company filed its Bill of Entry on 4 June 2026 at ICD Thimmapur.

    Customs examined the consignment on 19 June 2026. A Chartered Engineer appointed at Customs’ instance found that the machines were functional second-hand capital goods, had more than six years of residual life, were neither hazardous waste nor electronic waste, and each weighed more than 80 kg.

    Those findings were significant because the weight criterion placed the devices within the exemption for Highly Specialised Equipment (HSE) under the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2021 (CRO 2021).

    Customs’ decision to confiscate the goods

    Despite the technical certification, Customs issued a show-cause notice alleging that the importer required DGFT authorisation under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, and had not met BIS registration requirements. The adjudicating authority subsequently divided the 73 machines into two categories:

    • 36 units were treated as prohibited goods because their models allegedly exceeded a 100-unit annual threshold when imports by all importers across India were counted. These units could be redeemed only for re-export, subject to a redemption fine of Rs. 1,33,257.
    • 37 units were treated as restricted goods. Customs allowed redemption for home consumption on payment of a Rs. 3,95,021 redemption fine.

    The order was based on the view that the 100-unit threshold under the amended Paragraph 8 of CRO 2021 applied nationally and across unrelated importers.

    Court’s findings: the amendment could not operate retrospectively

    The High Court set aside the confiscation order, holding that the amendment adding the quantitative limit came into force only on 15 June 2026. Since Arka Business Solutions had filed its Bill of Entry on 4 June 2026, the amended provision did not govern the import.

    The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation is presumed to operate prospectively unless it clearly states otherwise. The notification did not contain language giving it retrospective effect.

    Under Section 15 of the Customs Act, the relevant legal position for goods entered for home consumption is determined on the date the Bill of Entry is presented. Accordingly, later events, including the Customs examination, show-cause notice, and adjudication order, could not subject the earlier import to a restriction that was not in force at the relevant time.

    Why the 100-unit interpretation was also flawed

    The Court found additional defects in Customs’ reasoning. The language of the amended provision referred to equipment β€œmanufactured/imported in less than 100 units per model per year,” but did not expressly create an industry-wide cap shared by all importers.

    The Court observed that Customs had not explained why one importer should lose an exemption because unrelated importers had brought in the same model. A restrictive interpretation that limits an exemption on the basis of third-party imports required clear statutory language, which was absent.

    The Court also noted that the show-cause notice did not tell the importer that eligibility would be tested using all-India import data from other importers. Deciding the case on a basis not disclosed in the notice violated the principle that a noticee must know the case it has to answer.

    HSE exemption meant the devices were freely importable

    The Court reaffirmed its earlier interpretation of the relationship between CRO 2021 and the Foreign Trade Policy. Where used MFDs satisfy the HSE exemption, the compulsory registration requirement does not apply. As a result, the import cannot be treated as restricted under the provision dealing with second-hand goods subject to CRO compliance.

    Instead, qualifying goods fall within the category of freely importable second-hand capital goods. Since the Chartered Engineer had confirmed the devices met the weight threshold and were functional capital goods rather than e-waste, there was no basis to classify them as prohibited or restricted.

    The Court therefore found no basis for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. It also held that the record did not support allegations of misdeclaration under Section 111(m) or a penalty under Section 112.

    Outcome and release conditions

    The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Customs order to the extent it:

    • classified the goods as prohibited or restricted;
    • confiscated them under Section 111(d);
    • imposed redemption fines; and
    • imposed any related penalty.

    Customs was directed to release the goods covered by the Bill of Entry, subject to conditions adopted from an earlier Arka Business Solutions decision. These conditions require the importer to deposit the enhanced duty amount after Customs quantifies it, while preserving the parties’ rights to pursue valuation issues separately. The Court also stated that any demurrage-waiver request must be considered objectively.

    Key legal takeaway

    The ruling confirms that import restrictions and exemption conditions must be assessed under the law in force when the Bill of Entry is filed. Customs cannot apply a later quantitative restriction retrospectively, expand an exemption limitation through an unclear all-India interpretation, or rely on grounds that were not put to the importer in the show-cause notice.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Telangana High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Rajasthan High Court Quashes 14-Year-Old Customs Drawback Proceedings for Unreasonable Delay

    Rajasthan High Court Quashes 14-Year-Old Customs Drawback Proceedings for Unreasonable Delay

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 31.10.2026

    Rajasthan High Court Quashes 14-Year-Old Customs Drawback Proceedings for Unreasonable Delay

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a 2008 customs show-cause notice and a 2022 adjudication order, holding that a 14-year delay without explanation or communication violated procedural fairness and natural justice.

    Case at a glance

    In Shivek Sharma v. Union of India (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19485/2022), decided on 9 September 2025, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur examined whether Customs authorities could revive and adjudicate a long-pending allegation concerning duty drawback and DEPB benefits after more than a decade of inactivity.

    The petitioner, Shivek Sharma, was the legal heir of the late proprietor of M/s J. Minakshi International. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had investigated alleged misuse of export-promotion schemes involving exports of goods such as readymade garments, leather items and brass items. A show-cause notice was issued on 31 March 2008, but the department did not proceed to adjudicate it until 2021-22. An Order-in-Original creating recovery demands was eventually issued on 18 October 2022.

    The Court ruled that this prolonged, unexplained delay made the proceedings legally unsustainable.

    Background of the dispute

    The DRI’s investigation concerned alleged fraudulent export transactions during 2001-05. It resulted in a show-cause notice against several parties, including M/s J. Minakshi International, a proprietary concern of the petitioner’s father.

    Several developments made the delay especially significant:

    • The notice was issued in 2008, when the petitioner was 13 years old.
    • The proprietor, Pawan Kumar Sharma, died in April 2021.
    • The department began hearing-related action only after approximately 13 years of silence.
    • The petitioner stated that he had neither inherited nor carried on the business and was unaware of the pending proceedings.
    • After receiving hearing notices, he sought the underlying notice and relied-on documents, explaining that he could not reasonably understand or answer transactions dating back many years.

    Despite these objections, Customs passed an order in October 2022, seeking recovery of duty drawback and interest from the petitioner as legal heir.

    The legal issue: Can Customs adjudicate after 14 years?

    The central issue was not merely whether the Customs Act or Drawback Rules contained a fixed limitation period. It was whether administrative and quasi-judicial powers can be exercised after such an extreme delay when the affected party was not informed of the status of the case.

    The petitioner argued that even where legislation does not prescribe a specific deadline, adjudication must occur within a reasonable period. He also relied on the statutory timelines reflected in Section 28(9) of the Customs Act to emphasize the importance of prompt decision-making in customs matters.

    The Customs department argued that the case involved recovery of drawback and DEPB benefits under the Drawback Rules, rather than an ordinary duty-demand case. It also argued that the 2018 amendment introducing timelines under Section 28(9) did not apply retrospectively and that an appellate remedy was available.

    What the Court held

    The High Court rejected the department’s position and held that the doctrine of reasonable time applies to adjudication proceedings generally. The absence of an express statutory deadline does not permit authorities to keep a show-cause notice alive indefinitely.

    The Court identified several decisive failures:

    • Inordinate delay: The order was passed more than 14 years after the show-cause notice.
    • No explanation: Customs did not provide a cogent reason for the delay.
    • No communication: The petitioner and his father were not told that the matter remained pending or had been placed in a β€œcall book.”
    • No supporting record: The department did not produce material proving any transfer to the call book or explaining the basis for it.
    • No fault of the petitioner: The delay was not attributed to the petitioner or his late father.
    • Ignored submissions: The adjudicating authority did not meaningfully address the petitioner’s arguments and cited case law on stale proceedings.

    The Court described the 14-year delay as incompatible with lawful, fair and effective quasi-judicial adjudication. It reiterated the principle expressed in the maxim lex dilationes abhorretβ€”the law abhors delay.

    Why lack of communication mattered

    A key part of the ruling is that delay becomes particularly unfair when the noticee is left uninformed. The Court noted that communication is necessary where proceedings are kept in abeyance or transferred to a call book.

    Without notice, the affected person may lose access to records, witnesses and other evidence needed for a proper defence. Long silence can also reasonably lead a person to believe that the proceedings have been abandoned or concluded.

    Here, the department was silent for more than a decade. The Court found that this lack of transparency caused grave prejudice and violated natural justice.

    Writ petition allowed despite an appellate remedy

    The department argued that the petitioner should pursue an appeal against the Order-in-Original. The Court held that the availability of an appeal did not bar the writ petition in these circumstances.

    The challenge was based on a fundamental procedural defect: the arbitrary and delayed revival of proceedings, coupled with a breach of natural justice. Because the very adjudication process was found to be vitiated, the Court considered writ jurisdiction appropriate.

    Final outcome

    The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed:

    1. The show-cause notice dated 31 March 2008, insofar as it concerned the petitioner; and
    2. The Order-in-Original dated 18 October 2022 passed under Section 122 of the Customs Act.

    The Court concluded that the petitioner was justified in treating the long-dormant proceedings as abandoned.

    Significance of the ruling

    This decision reinforces an important safeguard in customs and tax administration: authorities must adjudicate show-cause notices within a reasonable time, even where the governing provision does not specify a strict deadline.

    For businesses, proprietors, legal heirs and other noticees, the judgment confirms that a prolonged and unexplained revival of old proceedings can be challenged when it causes prejudice, particularly where the department failed to disclose the status of the case or preserve procedural fairness.

    For revenue authorities, it underscores that public-revenue objectives require diligence and timely action, not indefinite pendency.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Rajasthan High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • CESTAT Mumbai- Customs Cannot Calculate Import IGST on Exempted BCD

    CESTAT Mumbai- Customs Cannot Calculate Import IGST on Exempted BCD

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 30.10.2026

    CESTAT Mumbai- Customs Cannot Calculate Import IGST on Exempted BCD

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The CESTAT Mumbai has held that where imports qualify for a Basic Customs Duty (BCD) exemption under a valid Duty-Free Import Authorisation (DFIA), IGST must be calculated without adding the notional tariff-rate BCD to the assessable value.

    In TGI International v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai set aside an order that had rejected the importer’s challenge to IGST assessments on 105 Bills of Entry. The Tribunal ruled that the relevant statutory test is the customs duty actually β€œchargeable” after giving effect to a valid exemption notification, not the BCD shown in the tariff schedule.

    Background: 105 DFIA-based fabric imports

    TGI International, a fabric trader, imported polyester viscose fabrics through 105 Bills of Entry. It claimed full exemption from BCD under Notification No. 19/2015-Customs dated 1 April 2015, which applies to eligible imports made against a valid DFIA issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).

    The DFIA scheme permits duty-free import of specified inputs subject to prescribed conditions, including production of the authorisation at clearance and endorsements relating to the export obligation and resultant product. In this matter, the Tribunal found that the importer had complied with the applicable DFIA and notification requirements.

    Although the BCD claimed on the imports was nil, the Indian Customs EDI System (ICES) calculated IGST by adding BCD at the normal tariff rate of 20% to the transaction value. The importer paid the system-calculated IGST because the Bills of Entry could not be amended through the system, then appealed the assessments.

    The core legal issue

    The dispute concerned the meaning of β€œduty of customs chargeable” when determining the value on which IGST is levied on imported goods.

    Section 3(8) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 requires IGST to be calculated on an aggregate value comprising:

    1. the value of imported goods determined under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962; and
    2. any customs duty chargeable on the goods under Section 12 of the Customs Act.

    TGI International argued that once the DFIA exemption reduced BCD to zero, there was no BCD amount to add to the assessable value for IGST. Customs authorities, however, treated the tariff-rate BCD as part of the IGST base, even though the importer did not pay that duty in cash.

    Tribunal’s findings

    Effective duty, not tariff duty, governs the IGST base

    The Tribunal held that an exemption notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act must be given effect while determining the customs duty β€œchargeable” under Section 12. Although the tariff rate of BCD on the goods was 20%, the effective BCD was nil because the imports were covered by the DFIA exemption.

    Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the effective duty liability, rather than the unadjusted tariff rate, must be added to the import value when calculating IGST.

    No duty debit was made under the DFIA

    The Commissioner (Appeals) had reasoned that the customs duty was effectively discharged through debit in the DFIA authorisation. CESTAT rejected this conclusion as factually unsupported.

    The Bills of Entry showed β€œzero” against the duty-debit field. The DFIA documentation recorded the permitted CIF value and quantity of dyed polyester fabrics, but did not require debit of the BCD amount as a precondition for the exemption. The Tribunal therefore found that it was incorrect to treat the tariff BCD as a duty discharged through the authorisation.

    ICES could not override the legal valuation rule

    The Tribunal noted that ICES had added a notional BCD amount while computing IGST and had not taken account of the exemption claimed under Notification No. 19/2015-Customs. System-generated assessments cannot displace the statutory requirement to use the duty actually chargeable after the applicable exemption is applied.

    Reliance on earlier decisions

    CESTAT found support in earlier Tribunal rulings that distinguish the tariff rate from the effective rate after exemptions:

    • In Morarjee Brembana Ltd., the Tribunal held that only the effective customs duty, after applying the applicable exemption notification, should be added for calculating additional customs duty.
    • In Parasrampuria International, the Tribunal held that where BCD is nil due to an exemption, no BCD amount can be added to the assessable value merely because a tariff rate otherwise exists.

    The Revenue relied on Poddar Pigments Ltd., but CESTAT held that the case was distinguishable because it concerned interest on delayed IGST payment, not the correct BCD component for IGST valuation.

    Why the ruling matters

    The decision clarifies an important valuation principle for DFIA and other exemption-based imports: the IGST base must reflect the effective customs-duty liability, not a hypothetical duty calculated at the tariff rate.

    For eligible DFIA imports, this means a nil BCD exemption should result in zero BCD being added to the IGST valuation base. The ruling also reinforces that customs assessment systems must apply the substantive benefit of a valid exemption notification rather than mechanically loading tariff-rate duty into the calculation.

    Conclusion

    By allowing TGI International’s appeals, CESTAT Mumbai confirmed that a valid BCD exemption under the DFIA scheme must be fully reflected in IGST valuation. Where the effective BCD is nil, Customs cannot add the tariff-rate BCD notionally to inflate the IGST payable on imported goods.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Delhi HC: Importers Cannot Be Penalised for Administrative Failure of Customs Settlement Board

    Delhi HC: Importers Cannot Be Penalised for Administrative Failure of Customs Settlement Board

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 29.10.2026

    Delhi HC: Importers Cannot Be Penalised for Administrative Failure of Customs Settlement Board

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Delhi High Court has ruled that the statutory clock for customs settlement proceedings must stop when the Interim Board for Settlement is unable to function for want of quorum, protecting applicants from losing their settlement remedy because of an institutional vacancy.

    Background of the dispute

    Holitech India Private Limited, an importer of components used in cellular mobile phones and related products, faced two customs show-cause notices dated 21 September 2023. The notices concerned alleged wrongful use of a customs-duty exemption notification, classification issues, and alleged non-payment of differential duty on unutilised or rejected goods.

    To resolve the disputes through the settlement route under Chapter XIVA of the Customs Act, 1962, Holitech filed settlement applications. After earlier applications were not admitted, fresh applications filed in August 2024 and March 2025 were admitted and taken forward.

    Following amendments introduced through the Finance Act, 2025, pending matters before the Settlement Commission were transferred to the Interim Board for Settlement-I, Delhi. The Board heard Holitech, co-applicants and departmental representatives on 22 August 2025. Holitech also supplied additional written submissions requested by the Board, and the matters were reserved for orders.

    The quorum issue

    Before the Interim Board could issue its orders, one of its members retired on 30 September 2025. From 1 October 2025, the Board lacked the required quorum and could not legally continue with or decide the settlement proceedings.

    The Board’s office later confirmed that the applications had remained pending β€œfor want of quorum” since 1 October 2025. Despite this acknowledged inability to function, communications dated 17 April 2026 treated the proceedings as abated from 8 April 2026 because no settlement order had been passed within the period prescribed by Section 127C of the Customs Act.

    The communications also stated that the jurisdictional customs authorities could resume adjudication of the show-cause notices.

    The legal question

    The central issue before the Delhi High Court was whether settlement proceedings automatically abate when the statutory deadline expires, even though the Interim Board was legally incapable of passing an order because it did not have the required quorum.

    Holitech argued that it had done everything required of it: its applications were admitted, hearings were completed, written submissions were filed and nothing remained pending on its side. It contended that it should not lose a statutory remedy because the adjudicatory forum became non-functional for administrative reasons.

    The respondents argued that the statutory time limit was mandatory and that, once it expired without an order, abatement followed automatically. They maintained that the law contained no express exception for a period when the Board lacked quorum.

    The Court’s reasoning

    The Court rejected a purely literal reading of the statutory time limit. It held that Section 127C must be interpreted as a complete scheme, rather than by isolating the provisions on deadlines and abatement.

    The Court emphasized that the statutory timeline assumes the continued existence of a legally constituted authority capable of carrying out its duties. A body without quorum cannot validly exercise adjudicatory powers or pronounce an order affecting the parties’ rights.

    The Court drew a critical distinction between:

    • a delay caused while a competent authority is able to decide but fails to do so; and
    • a delay caused because the authority itself is legally unable to function.

    Treating these situations identically, the Court said, would produce an unreasonable result. An applicant who had diligently pursued settlement proceedings would lose the remedy through circumstances entirely outside its control, while having no means to secure a decision from a non-functional Board.

    The Court held that the phrase requiring an order within the prescribed period cannot include a period during which the Interim Board had ceased to be an effective adjudicatory forum due to lack of quorum. The time for disposal must therefore exclude the period of institutional incapacity.

    Decision and relief granted

    The Court set aside both communications dated 17 April 2026 that had declared the settlement proceedings abated.

    It ruled that, for Holitech’s applications, the entire period from 1 October 2025 until 4 August 2026 must be excluded when calculating the timeline under Section 127C(8A), read with Section 127C(12), of the Customs Act.

    Because that period could not be counted, the alleged expiry of the statutory period on 8 April 2026 no longer had any legal basis. The settlement applications did not abate.

    The Court also noted that the vacancy had subsequently been filled and that Interim Board for Settlement-I, Delhi had regained the required quorum. It directed the Board to resume Holitech’s applications from the stage immediately before the abatement communications and decide them expeditiously in accordance with law.

    Why the ruling matters

    The decision establishes that statutory deadlines for settlement proceedings cannot be applied in a way that penalizes applicants for the adjudicatory forum’s legal inability to function.

    It preserves the purpose of the customs settlement mechanism: timely and conclusive resolution of disputes, without making access to that remedy dependent on administrative contingencies beyond an applicant’s control. The ruling does not decide the merits of Holitech’s customs disputes. Those issues remain open for determination by the duly constituted Interim Board.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • CESTAT Kolkata Upholds Classification of Ice-Cream Making Machinery Under CTH 8438

    CESTAT Kolkata Upholds Classification of Ice-Cream Making Machinery Under CTH 8438

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 28.10.2026

    CESTAT Kolkata Upholds Classification of Ice-Cream Making Machinery Under CTH 8438

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has dismissed six Revenue appeals against J.B. Pen Mart, holding that the disputed imported ice-cream making machinery should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8438 rather than CTH 8418. The Tribunal also rejected Customs’ enhancement of the declared import value because the statutory reassessment procedure was not followed.

    The dispute: classification and valuation of imported machinery

    The case concerned six Bills of Entry filed by J.B. Pen Mart for imported ice-making and ice-cream making equipment during 2017 and 2018. The importer had sought classification under CTH 8438 80 90, covering machinery used in the industrial preparation or manufacture of food and drink.

    Customs authorities reclassified the goods under CTH 8418 69 90, treating them as ice-cream machines or refrigeration-related equipment. They also enhanced the declared value of the imports, resulting in an aggregate differential duty demand of Rs. 12,27,374.98.

    J.B. Pen Mart paid the additional duty to secure clearance of the goods and avoid demurrage, but did so under protest. The company challenged both the classification and the valuation before the Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled in its favour. The Revenue then appealed to CESTAT.

    Tribunal’s finding: no valid reassessment without a speaking order

    A central issue was the Customs department’s failure to issue a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Where Customs reassesses goods contrary to an importer’s self-assessment on classification or value, the proper officer must issue a reasoned order within 15 days unless the importer has expressly accepted the reassessment in writing. In this case, the Tribunal found that no such order had been issued.

    The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s argument that payment of the revised duty amounted to acceptance. It noted that J.B. Pen Mart had paid under protest, sought to avoid port-related charges, and subsequently challenged the reassessment. These facts showed that the importer had not accepted the revised classification or enhanced value.

    As a result, the Tribunal held that the reassessment was unsustainable for breach of statutory procedure and principles of natural justice.

    Why CTH 8438 was preferred over CTH 8418

    The Tribunal also found that the Department’s own past treatment of comparable machinery supported classification under CTH 8438.

    The record showed a consistent history of orders and assessments treating similar ice-cream making equipment as machinery for food preparation under CTH 8438, including:

    • A 2008 departmental review stating that ice-cream candy making machinery was classifiable under CTH 8438.
    • A 2012 Order-in-Appeal that classified an integrated ice-cream production system under CTH 8438 80 90.
    • The 2018 appellate order in J.B. Pen Mart’s own matter.
    • A 2025 Order-in-Appeal involving the same importer, which again held that complete ice-cream making and ice-cube machines belonged under CTH 8438 80 90.
    • A subsequent October 2018 clearance of identical goods for J.B. Pen Mart under CTH 8438.

    The Tribunal distinguished complete machinery used to prepare and dispense edible products from ordinary refrigeration equipment. While Heading 8418 covers refrigerators, freezers, and similar cooling equipment, the imported machines were designed for the production of ice cream and ice cubes as food products. Their principal function was food preparation, making CTH 8438 the more appropriate heading.

    Inconsistent departmental practice benefited the importer

    CESTAT observed that Customs had taken divergent positions over the years, classifying similar goods under CTH 8438 in 2008, 2012, 2018, and 2025, while seeking classification under CTH 8418 for the disputed 2017–2018 imports.

    The Tribunal held that Revenue could not selectively classify identical or similar goods under different tariff headings without cogent reasoning. Because the Department itself had created uncertainty through inconsistent practice, the benefit of that confusion had to go to the importer.

    The Tribunal also noted that prior appellate orders supporting CTH 8438 had not been effectively challenged or stayed by the Department. Those orders therefore continued to carry weight in determining the correct classification.

    Value enhancement was set aside

    The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’ decision to reject the enhanced import values. Customs had not provided evidence showing why the transaction values declared by J.B. Pen Mart should be rejected, nor had it disclosed a lawful method for determining the enhanced values.

    The order emphasizes that transaction value cannot be discarded merely on assumption or routine assessment practice. Customs must first establish legally valid grounds under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Comparable-import data, if relied upon, must be supported by evidence regarding quality, quantity, country of origin, and timing of imports.

    In this case, there was no evidence that the invoices were unreliable, that the buyer and seller were related, or that any amount over the invoice price had been paid. The failure to issue a Section 17(5) speaking order independently made the value enhancement invalid.

    Key takeaways from the decision

    • Classification must reflect the machine’s principal function. Complete machinery designed for making ice cream and ice cubes as edible products may fall under CTH 8438 as food-preparation machinery rather than under CTH 8418 as cooling equipment.
    • A speaking order is mandatory for disputed reassessments. Customs must issue a reasoned order under Section 17(5) when it changes declared classification or value without the importer’s written acceptance.
    • Payment to avoid demurrage is not acceptance. An importer’s payment of additional duty, particularly under protest, does not eliminate its right to challenge reassessment.
    • Declared value needs evidence to be rejected. Customs cannot enhance value without lawful reasons, supporting evidence, and compliance with the Customs Valuation Rules.
    • Consistency in assessments matters. When the Department has repeatedly accepted a particular classification for similar goods, it must provide strong reasons and follow due process before departing from that position.

    CESTAT Kolkata therefore dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and confirmed the relief granted to J.B. Pen Mart: classification under CTH 8438 and assessment at the importer’s declared values.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • CESTAT Allahabad: Customs Cannot Bypass Mandatory Valuation Rules Through Importer’s Consent Letter

    CESTAT Allahabad: Customs Cannot Bypass Mandatory Valuation Rules Through Importer’s Consent Letter

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 27.10.2026

    CESTAT Allahabad: Customs Cannot Bypass Mandatory Valuation Rules Through Importer’s Consent Letter

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The CESTAT Allahabad held that an importer’s written acceptance of an enhanced customs value does not remove its statutory right to challenge that reassessment, particularly where Customs has not properly disclosed the grounds and evidence for rejecting the declared transaction value.

    Case at a glance

    In Final Order Nos. 70472-70474/2026, decided on 16 October 2026, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, allowed three connected appeals filed by Artex Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. against the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD Dadri.

    The dispute concerned imports of polyester knitted fabric from China. Customs had enhanced the declared unit values of the consignments based on alleged contemporaneous import data. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the importers’ challenges primarily because they had signed written letters accepting the enhanced values at the time of clearance.

    CESTAT set aside those appellate orders and granted consequential relief in accordance with law.

    Background: declared values were substantially enhanced

    The importers had declared negotiated invoice values for polyester knitted fabric. Customs enhanced those values as follows:

    • Artex Overseas Pvt. Ltd.: declared value of USD 1.00 per kg enhanced to USD 1.77 per kg for three Bills of Entry dated 20 and 24 May 2019.
    • Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd.: declared value of USD 1.05 per kg enhanced to USD 1.85 per kg for Bills of Entry dated 31 March 2020 and 7 April 2020.

    The goods were found to conform to the declarations on examination. However, Customs raised concerns after comparing the consignments with contemporaneous import data and sought more detailed information on the fabric, including composition and dimensions.

    The department then treated the declared values as liable for rejection under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and reassessed the goods at higher values.

    Importers’ case: acceptance was compelled and lacked legal foundation

    Artex Overseas and Artex Textile argued that they had correctly self-assessed duty on the basis of their invoices and negotiated purchase prices. They maintained that the department did not issue out-of-charge orders and did not act on their requests for provisional assessment.

    According to the importers, they paid duty at the enhanced values under protest to prevent clearance delays and were effectively compelled to issue letters of consent. They repeatedly sought speaking orders explaining the reassessment, but none were issued.

    Their principal legal arguments were:

    • A written acceptance of enhancement does not bar an importer from filing an appeal.
    • Customs must follow Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the valuation process prescribed by the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
    • Rule 12 requires the proper officer to form a reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value and, when required, communicate the grounds in writing.
    • A generic reference to contemporaneous import data is insufficient; Customs must provide material showing genuine comparability, including relevant factors such as quantity, quality, GSM, commercial level and timing of the transaction.
    • Mere reliance on NIDB or external import data cannot, without independent and cogent supporting evidence, justify rejection of the declared transaction value.

    Department’s position: written consent eliminated the need for a speaking order

    The department relied on the importers’ acceptance letters. It argued that the letters recorded that the importers had been informed of the grounds for rejecting their declared values, had seen data relating to similar or identical imports, and had agreed to the enhanced values without seeking a show-cause notice or speaking order.

    On that basis, the department contended that Section 17(5) of the Customs Act relieved Customs of the obligation to issue a speaking order once reassessment was accepted in writing.

    Tribunal’s findings: waiver is limited to the speaking order, not the right to appeal

    The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had focused too narrowly on the acceptance letters and had not applied the full legal principles governing customs valuation.

    CESTAT relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which confirms that Rule 12(2) cannot be bypassed or waived. The proper officer must form a reasoned view that there is doubt about the declared value and communicate the grounds for that doubt to the importer when required.

    The Tribunal also followed the Delhi High Court’s decision in Niraj Silk Mills v. Commissioner of Customs, which clarified that:

    • Written acceptance under Section 17(5) may waive the procedural requirement for a speaking order.
    • It does not waive or extinguish the importer’s statutory right to challenge the reassessment.
    • A reassessment based only on NIDB data is not sustainable unless supported by independent, cogent evidence and a reasoned justification for departing from the declared value.

    The Tribunal noted that the acceptance letters did not themselves disclose the alleged contemporaneous-import details on which Customs relied.

    The revenue authorities had therefore failed to bridge the gap between a standard-form acceptance and the evidentiary basis required to lawfully reject transaction value.

    Decision and practical significance

    CESTAT held that the case was squarely governed by the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Niraj Silk Mills. It therefore set aside all three Orders-in-Appeal and allowed the appeals of Artex Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd., with consequential relief as permitted by law.

    The ruling reinforces an important safeguard in customs valuation: an importer’s consent to clearance at an enhanced value cannot be treated as a blanket surrender of its right to contest an unlawful reassessment. Customs must still demonstrate, through disclosed and relevant material, why the declared transaction value should be rejected and why the substituted value is legally supportable.

    For importers, the decision underscores that consent letters signed to secure release of detained goods do not necessarily end the valuation dispute.

    For Customs authorities, it emphasizes the need for transparent, evidence-based valuation orders rather than reassessments founded solely on generic references to database values or contemporaneous imports.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: CESTAT Allahabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • CESTAT Kolkata: Foreign Origin and Smuggled Character Are Two Distinct Questions Under Customs Law

    CESTAT Kolkata: Foreign Origin and Smuggled Character Are Two Distinct Questions Under Customs Law

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 26.10.2026

    CESTAT Kolkata: Foreign Origin and Smuggled Character Are Two Distinct Questions Under Customs Law

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has allowed nine connected appeals concerning the seizure of 39.156 metric tonnes of betel nuts, ruling that Customs did not establish that the goods were of foreign origin or had been smuggled into India.

    In Final Order Nos. 76499-76507/2026, pronounced on 15 October 2026, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation order and all related penalties. The decision underscores an important principle in customs law: for non-notified goods such as betel nuts, the burden remains on the Revenue to prove smuggling with reliable evidence rather than assumptions, inconclusive reports, or uncorroborated statements.

    Background: Two Trucks Intercepted Near Siliguri

    The case arose from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) operation on 3 March 2019. Acting on intelligence that allegedly smuggled betel nuts from Myanmar were being transported through the Siliguri area, officers intercepted two trucks at Goaltuli More on the Fulbari-Ghoshpukur Bypass Road in Darjeeling district, West Bengal.

    The trucks, bearing registration numbers AP-27TX-6129 and WB-65C-5608, were carrying betel nuts stated to have been loaded at Vairengte, Mizoram, for delivery to consignees in Hooghly and Nabadwip, West Bengal. The drivers produced transport documents, tax invoices, consignment notes and e-way bills. One consignment was documented as supplied by M/s A.D. Store to M/s Papai Traders, while the other was documented as supplied by M/s Zotei Enterprise to Shri Narayan Karmakar.

    Following a search at the DRI office in Siliguri, officers found:

    • 209 bags weighing 16.302 MT in truck AP-27TX-6129;
    • 293 bags weighing 22.854 MT in truck WB-65C-5608; and
    • A combined quantity of 39.156 MT, valued by Customs at Rs. 1,07,67,900.

    Customs seized the goods, the two carrier vehicles, related documents and two mobile phones. The department alleged that the betel nuts had been smuggled from Myanmar through the Indo-Myanmar border and were therefore liable to confiscation under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Customs Case and Earlier Orders

    The Revenue relied mainly on statements recorded from the truck drivers and helpers, investigation into the consignors and consignees, call-detail records, and a report from the Arecanut Research and Development Foundation (ARDF), Mangalore.

    The ARDF report stated that the samples β€œseems to be of North-East including Myanmar region.” It also noted mould infestation and non-compliance with BIS standards. Customs treated this report, along with the statements and surrounding circumstances, as support for the allegation that the consignments were of Myanmar origin and had entered India illegally.

    On 28 August 2020, the adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation of the betel nuts and imposed penalties on the persons connected with the consignments. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld that order on 23 February 2022.

    The affected parties, including Debasish Saha of M/s Papai Traders, Dipak Saha, Narayan Karmakar, Sujit Mitra, Md. Shamim Uddin, Zoramthari, Nilkamal Saha, Anjan Kumar Paul and Lalenkawli, then appealed to CESTAT.

    Tribunal’s Findings: Evidence Did Not Prove Smuggling

    The Tribunal found that the department’s evidence was insufficient to establish either foreign origin or illegal importation.

    1. The ARDF opinion was not conclusive

    CESTAT noted that the ARDF report did not say the goods were of Myanmar origin. Its wordingβ€”that the samples β€œseems to be of North-East including Myanmar region”—was held to be inconclusive. A reference to a broad region that includes Myanmar could not, by itself, prove that the goods originated in Myanmar.

    The Tribunal also relied on judicial precedents that question the evidentiary value of such reports where there is no recognised scientific or objective test capable of determining the territorial origin of betel nuts.

    2. Betel nuts are non-notified goods

    A central point in the ruling was that betel nuts are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. As a result, the statutory burden does not shift to the person from whom the goods are seized. Instead, Customs must prove that the goods are smuggled.

    The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not meet this burden merely by relying on suspicion, a tentative expert opinion, or statements. Even if goods were assumed to be of foreign origin, that alone would not establish illegal importation; positive evidence of smuggling was still required.

    3. The seizure location and accompanying documents mattered

    The goods were intercepted in West Bengal, not at the Indo-Myanmar border. The trucks also carried invoices and other commercial transport documents identifying Mizoram-based suppliers and West Bengal consignees.

    The Tribunal held that these facts did not permit an automatic inference that the goods had crossed the border illegally. The documentary trail could not be displaced without cogent contrary evidence.

    4. Precedents required proof, not presumption

    The order relied on the Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Siliguri v. Subodh Das, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. That line of authority establishes that, for non-notified betel nuts, Customs must discharge the burden of proving foreign origin and smuggled character.

    The Tribunal also referred to Maqsood Alam v. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow and Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). These decisions emphasise that visual assessments, inconclusive opinions and strong suspicion cannot replace objective evidence of smuggling.

    Outcome: Confiscation and Penalties Quashed

    CESTAT concluded that the Revenue had failed to prove that the seized betel nuts were smuggled goods. It therefore set aside the confiscation of the 39.156 MT consignment and held that no penalties could be imposed on the appellants.

    The Tribunal allowed all connected appeals and overturned the Order-in-Appeal dated 23 February 2022.

    Key Legal Significance

    This ruling reinforces that customs enforcement actions involving non-notified goods must rest on clear, affirmative and legally reliable evidence. In particular:

    • A tentative report suggesting a possible regional origin is not proof of foreign origin.
    • Foreign origin, even if established, does not automatically prove that goods were illegally imported.
    • For non-notified goods, Customs bears the burden of proving smuggling.
    • Confiscation and penalties cannot be sustained on presumptions, suspicion or inadequately supported statements.

    The decision provides a significant restatement of evidentiary standards in betel-nut smuggling cases, particularly where seizures occur away from an international border and goods are accompanied by commercial documentation.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Delhi High Court Refuses to Condone Customs Department’s Delay

    Delhi High Court Refuses to Condone Customs Department’s Delay

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 24.10.2026

    Delhi High Court Refuses to Condone Customs Department’s Delay

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Customs Department’s appeal against Spectro Lab Equipments Pvt. Ltd. after finding that its 154-day delay was supported by no reasonable, specific, or substantiated explanation.

    The ruling, delivered on 15 October 2026 in Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) v. Spectro Lab Equipments Pvt. Ltd., reinforces a settled principle: government departments are subject to limitation laws just like any other litigant. Internal file movement, procedural delay, or an unsupported allegation that prior counsel failed to act will not automatically establish β€œsufficient cause” for a delayed appeal.

    Background of the dispute

    The Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), sought to challenge a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal order dated 29 January 2025. The appeal was brought under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    The Department stated that it received the Tribunal’s order on 13 February 2025 but filed its High Court appeal only on 9 January 2026. Because the filing exceeded the prescribed period, the Department submitted an application seeking condonation of a 154-day delay.

    Its explanation was that the complete case file had been handed to an earlier counsel on 26 June 2025. According to the Department, that counsel neither filed the appeal nor informed it of any issue. The file was then said to have been assigned to present counsel on 16 October 2025, after which additional documents were obtained and the appeal was filed.

    Why the Court rejected the explanation

    The Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain found material deficiencies in the Department’s explanation.

    1. More than four months passed before the file was given to counsel

    The Department received the impugned order on 13 February 2025 but claimed to have handed the file to its earlier counsel only on 26 June 2025. The Court noted this substantial initial period of inactivity.

    No detailed explanation was offered for why the Department took over four months to transfer the matter for filing an appeal.

    2. The Department did not show that it followed up with earlier counsel

    After allegedly handing over the file on 26 June 2025, the Department did not plead that it had made any inquiry about the appeal’s status. It also did not state when the file was retrieved from the earlier counsel.

    The Court treated this lack of follow-up as significant. A party seeking condonation must show diligence in protecting its legal rights; it cannot merely assert that a file was given to a lawyer and then remain inactive.

    3. The allegation against earlier counsel was unsupported

    Although the Department blamed its former counsel, it did not disclose that counsel’s details or submit an affidavit from the counsel supporting the account. This was especially relevant because the Department had its own panel of counsel.

    The Court found the allegation vague and unsubstantiated rather than a reliable factual basis for excusing the delay.

    4. The explanation was internally inconsistent

    The pleadings stated that a β€œcomplete” file was supplied to earlier counsel. However, the Department’s counsel also argued that additional documents had to be obtained after the present counsel received the matter, contributing to the filing delay.

    The Court considered these positions contradictory. If the first counsel received a complete file, the later assertion that necessary documentation was still unavailable required a clear explanation. None was provided.

    Government departments cannot claim special treatment under limitation law

    The Court relied on established Supreme Court decisions holding that the law of limitation applies equally to the government.

    In Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., the Supreme Court held that administrative negligence, routine file movement, and bureaucratic red tape do not constitute sufficient cause unless the department provides a reasonable and acceptable explanation and demonstrates bona fide efforts to act in time.

    The Delhi High Court also referred to State of Bihar v. Deo Kumar Singh, which confirms that delay cannot be condoned merely because of lethargic governmental functioning. It further cited Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, where the Supreme Court cautioned that litigants cannot escape responsibility for a prolonged delay simply by shifting all blame to their advocates.

    The Court additionally relied on Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA), emphasizing that a liberal or justice-oriented approach does not remove the threshold requirement of β€œsufficient cause.” Courts cannot mechanically revive stale claims where negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is apparent.

    The Court’s decision

    The High Court held that the condonation application was cursory, vague, and lacking in particulars. The period between 26 June 2025 and 15 October 2025 had effectively been left unexplained, apart from the unsupported attempt to blame earlier counsel.

    Finding no reasonable explanation for the 154-day delay, the Court dismissed the application for condonation. As a result, the Customs appeal itself was also disposed of.

    Key legal takeaway

    This decision is a clear reminder that condonation of delay is an exception, not an anticipated benefit for government litigants. A department seeking relief must present a coherent, evidence-based timeline showing prompt action, regular monitoring, and a genuine cause for missing the limitation period. General references to internal processing or counsel-related delay, without supporting facts, will not meet that standard.

    For litigants and public authorities alike, the ruling underscores that vigilance in pursuing appeals is essential: limitation periods are binding, and courts will not overlook unexplained inactivity simply because the appellant is a government department.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Mumbai Customs Finds No BIS Violation in GE Vernova’s Imported Cable Harness following Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha’s Legal Representation

    Mumbai Customs Finds No BIS Violation in GE Vernova’s Imported Cable Harness following Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha’s Legal Representation

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 24.10.2026

    Mumbai Customs Finds No BIS Violation in GE Vernova’s Imported Cable Harness following Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha’s Legal Representation

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha, practising before the Delhi High Court, represented M/s GE Renewable R&D India Private Limited (GE Vernova) through virtual personal hearing proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House (JNCH), Nhava Sheva, Mumbai. His detailed legal submissions, supported by technical documentation and a comprehensive legal opinion, contributed to securing a favourable finding on the applicability of mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification to customised electrical cable harness assemblies under the relevant Quality Control Orders (QCOs).

    The matter concerned an imported OEM-specific control cable harness assembly designed for wind turbine applications, raising important questions regarding BIS certification, applicable Indian Standards and Customs Tariff classification.

    BIS Certification and HSN Classification: The Central Legal Issue

    The imported cable harness was initially declared under CTH 85447090, relating to optical-fibre cables. During assessment, the alternative classification under CTH 85444220, concerning insulated electrical conductors fitted with connectors, was examined.

    The principal legal issue was whether a customised, factory-assembled electrical harness automatically attracted mandatory BIS certification requirements applicable to conventional electrical cables.

    Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha emphasised that customs tariff classification and BIS/QCO applicability are independent legal determinations. Classification under a particular HSN code cannot, by itself, establish mandatory BIS certification requirements.

    Relevant BIS Standards and Technical Submissions

    The legal representation examined the scope and applicability of several Indian Standards, including:

    • IS 694: PVC-insulated electrical cables.
    • IS 1554 (Part 1): PVC-insulated heavy-duty electric cables.
    • IS 9968 (Part 1): Elastomer-insulated cables.
    • IS 9968 (Part 2): Elastomer-insulated cables for specified higher-voltage applications.
    • IS 17048:2018: Halogen-free, flame-retardant cables.
    • IS 7098: XLPE-insulated power cables under the relevant voltage categories.

    The submissions highlighted that the imported product was not a conventional standalone electrical cable but an integrated OEM assembly comprising power conductors, control wiring, CAT5 Ethernet cables, fibre-optic links and specialised connectors.

    It was further argued that product-specific exclusions, insulation materials, voltage ratings and technical specifications must be examined before applying mandatory BIS requirements.

    Favourable BIS/QCO Determination

    Following consideration of the technical documents, legal submissions and personal hearing representations, the adjudicating authority concluded that a violation of mandatory BIS requirements had not been established in respect of the imported cable harness assembly.

    The Order-in-Original recognised that the applicability of BIS/QCO requirements must be assessed with reference to the relevant product specifications and notified standards, rather than inferred solely from customs tariff classification.

    The goods were therefore not held liable to confiscation on BIS/QCO violation grounds.

    The order separately determined the applicable customs classification under CTH 85444220 and imposed consequential differential duty and penalties. Accordingly, the favourable outcome related specifically to the BIS/QCO issue and should not be construed as complete relief on all customs issues.

    Legal Significance for Industrial Importers

    This matter highlights the importance of technical and legal assessment when determining BIS applicability to customised industrial products.

    Importers of OEM cable harnesses, electrical assemblies, industrial automation components and specialised machinery should carefully examine the scope of applicable QCOs and Indian Standards before determining certification obligations.

    The presence of electrical conductors or connectors within a customised industrial assembly does not automatically establish mandatory BIS certification applicability.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services – BIS, Customs and Regulatory AdvisoryAadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) provides specialised legal assistance in Customs & Allied laws, customs tariff classification, import regulatory compliance, legal opinions, adjudication proceedings and representation before Customs authorities, DGFT, Ministry, DGFT office and any other related Govt agencies.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: DPIIT, CBIC

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Legal Opinion Summary by Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi