ALO Partners Logo

𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Category: Ministry of Finance

  • CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in ₹5.82 Crore Firecracker Seizure

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in ₹5.82 Crore Firecracker Seizure

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.06.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in ₹5.82 Crore Firecracker Seizure

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has set aside all penalties imposed on six individuals alleged to be involved in the illegal storage and smuggling of firecrackers purportedly of Chinese origin, valued at ₹5.82 crores.

    The case revolved around a town seizure made by the DRI from a godown in Dankuni, West Bengal, where firecrackers were allegedly smuggled and stored in violation of Customs and Explosives laws. However, the Tribunal found multiple procedural lapses and lack of evidence, leading to full relief for the appellants.

    Background

    • Date of Seizure: 07–08 August 2021
    • Location: Godown No.1-D, Vidya Complex-1, Dankuni, West Bengal
    • Goods Seized: Firecrackers stored in over 2500 gunny sacks, allegedly of Chinese origin
    • Valuation: ₹5,82,12,560/-
    • Penalties Imposed:
      • ₹10,00,000 – (Alleged Mastermind)
      • ₹5,00,000 – (Company Representative)
      • ₹5,00,000 – (IEC Provider)
      • ₹50,000 each – (Driver, Godown Owner, Misc.)

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

    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 Chennai Rejected Customs Valuation and MIP Allegations

    CESTAT Chennai Rejected Customs Valuation and MIP Allegations

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Rejected Customs Valuation and MIP Allegations

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a total penalty of ₹60 crores imposed on M/s. Sindhu Lakshmi Impex, its partners, and an associate entity, M/s. BNM Global Ventures, in a high-profile case concerning the import of black pepper from Sri Lanka. The tribunal quashed the Commissioner of Customs’ Order-in-Original dated 20.11.2020, which had imposed penalties and declared the imports as “prohibited” under customs law.

    Background of the Case

    • Imports in Dispute: 10,79,000 Kgs of Black Pepper imported under various Bills of Entry.
    • Allegations: The Department alleged overvaluation of imports from a related party in Sri Lanka (Lakshmi Export and Import), intended to circumvent the Minimum Import Price (MIP) of ₹500/kg imposed by DGFT Notification No. 21/2015–20 dated 25.07.2018.
    • Key Charges: Improper imports, misdeclaration of value, and violation of Sections 111(m), 111(o), 112, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

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

    Source: CESTAT Chennai

    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 Upheld Third-Party Invoicing Under ISFTA

    CESTAT Mumbai Upheld Third-Party Invoicing Under ISFTA

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Upheld Third-Party Invoicing Under ISFTA

    Background of the Case

    Ansell India Protective Products Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai, imported Latex Rubber Surgical Gloves from Sri Lanka under the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) and claimed concessional duty under Notification No. 26/2000-Customs read with Notification No. 19/2000-Customs (N.T.), supported by a valid Certificate of Origin (COO).

    However, the Department denied the benefit, objecting to the “third-country invoicing” arrangement, as the commercial invoice was issued by Ansell Global Center (Malaysia), although the goods originated from Sri Lanka.

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

    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 Chandigarh Upholds CENVAT Credit on Endorsed Bills of Entry

    CESTAT Chandigarh Upholds CENVAT Credit on Endorsed Bills of Entry

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.06.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh Upholds CENVAT Credit on Endorsed Bills of Entry

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose from CENVAT credit claimed by Hero Cycles Ltd. on imported e-bikes and parts brought in by Hero Exports under FMC and DFCE Scrips. These goods were:

    • Imported in CKD condition,
    • Endorsed on the Bill of Entry to Hero Cycles, and
    • Sent directly to their factory for job work and assembly.

    The department rejected the CENVAT credit on the grounds that:

    • Endorsed Bill of Entry is not a valid document under Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and
    • Hero Cycles was not listed as a supporting manufacturer in the respective export licenses under Notification No. 53/2003-Cus. and 90/2006-Cus.

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

    Source: CESTAT Chandigarh

    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 Chennai Upholds 90-Day Limit Under CBLR

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds 90-Day Limit Under CBLR

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds 90-Day Limit Under CBLR

    Background

    M/s. Kailash Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., a licensed Customs Broker, faced suspension of its broker license (License No. R-302/CHA) due to an alleged offence involving the use of a tampered self-sealing permission letter during export clearance at Chennai’s DPE facility in November 2024.

    Although the firm promptly admitted that the mistake was committed by a junior staff member (who was later suspended), the Customs Department issued:

    • Initial Suspension Order under Regulation 16(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.
    • Continued Suspension Order under Regulation 16(2).
    • A subsequent Show Cause Notice (SCN) No. 09/2025 dated 17.03.2025 under Regulation 17(1), received by Customs on 09.12.2024.

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

    Source: CESTAT Chennai

    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- COOs were not proven to be invalid or fake

    CESTAT Ahmedabad- COOs were not proven to be invalid or fake

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.06.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad- COOs were not proven to be invalid or fake

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Ahmedabad has set aside the demand for anti-dumping duty on Alfakrina Exports, affirming the legal sanctity of Certificates of Origin under preferential trade agreements. The decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance when questioning the origin of goods in the context of international trade.

    Background

    Alfakrina Exports had imported five consignments of PVC Sheeting Flex Banners from Malaysia, backed by Certificates of Origin (COO) issued by the Malay Chamber of Commerce. The goods were cleared through Customs at Mundra Port under the concessional duty benefit provided under Notification No. 53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011, pertaining to imports from Malaysia.

    However, the Revenue alleged that the goods were actually of Chinese origin, citing Bills of Lading showing prior movement from Shanghai to Malaysia. On this basis, anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 82/2011-Cus dated 25.08.2011 was imposed, ignoring the COO furnished by the appellant.

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

    Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

    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 Allahabad Grants Exemption in Re-Export Dispute

    CESTAT Allahabad Grants Exemption in Re-Export Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.06.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Grants Exemption in Re-Export Dispute

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Allahabad has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Competence Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur, against the rejection of an extension request for re-export of goods under Notification No. 158/1995-Cus dated 14.11.1995.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Competence Exports had exported leather footwear and upper components to Russia. Due to quality/technical issues, the goods were re-imported for repairs and intended to be re-exported under the exemption available for such re-imports.

    The re-import took place on 27.12.2021 through Bill of Entry No. 6845771, and the goods were released by Customs on 10.02.2022. As per the notification, the goods had to be re-exported within six months, or with the Commissioner’s permission, within a further extended period of another six months.

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

    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 Bangalore Reiterates Burden of Proof on Revenue in Valuation Disputes

    CESTAT Bangalore Reiterates Burden of Proof on Revenue in Valuation Disputes

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.06.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Reiterates Burden of Proof on Revenue in Valuation Disputes

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench, allowed the appeals filed by M/s Kottaram Trading Co. and its partner, effectively setting aside customs duty demands, interest, and penalties arising out of allegations of undervaluation in the import of opal glassware.

    Background of the Case

    Kottaram Trading had imported 53 consignments of opal glassware from M/s ARC International Middle East LLC, UAE, between July 2003 and August 2006. The Directorate initiated proceedings in 2006, alleging undervaluation and invoking Section 114A and Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    The adjudicating authority re-determined the value from ₹4.97 crore to ₹7.32 crore and raised a differential duty demand of ₹72.91 lakh, imposing equivalent penalties.

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

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    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 Upholds Supreme Court’s Limitation Order

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Supreme Court’s Limitation Order

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Supreme Court’s Limitation Order

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has ruled in favor of Baosteel India Company Pvt. Ltd., allowing a refund of ₹20.69 lakhs, which was earlier denied on grounds of limitation. This judgment reinforces the binding effect of Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic and sets a precedent in refund disputes affected by procedural delays during lockdowns.

    Case Background

    • Appellant: Baosteel India Company Pvt. Ltd.
    • Respondent: Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai
    • Dispute: Denial of refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) on grounds that the refund claim was filed beyond the statutory one-year limitation.
    • Amount Involved: ₹20,69,268/-
    • Period of Imports: 2015 to 2018 (on provisional assessments)
    • Refund Application Filed: 18 January 2021
    • Final Assessment Date: 15 January 2020

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

    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 Sets Aside Gold Confiscation

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Gold Confiscation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.06.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Gold Confiscation

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) – Kolkata Bench allowed the appeal of Appellant, setting aside the confiscation of gold bars, currency, and a vehicle seized in 2017. The Tribunal held that the Department failed to establish the smuggled nature of the gold and other items under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Case Brief:

    • Seizure Date: 29 March 2017
    • Place of Seizure: Near Md. Ali Park, Kolkata
    • Items Seized:
      • 56 gold bars (approx. 7 kg)
      • USD 3400 in foreign currency
      • ₹41,900 in Indian currency
      • Hyundai i10 car

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

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com