ALO Partners Logo

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πšπ° 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐬 (π€π‹πŽ)

Latest Posts

  • Supreme Court of India Upholds CESTAT Decision in Customs Valuation

    Supreme Court of India Upholds CESTAT Decision in Customs Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.09.2025

    Supreme Court of India Upholds CESTAT Decision in Customs Valuation ​ ​

     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.

    On October 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. M/s Ganpati Overseas (2023INSC881), addressing critical issues related to customs valuation under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment, authored by Justice, upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision, which had set aside the customs department’s order enhancing the value of imported goods and imposing penalties on the importer. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around allegations of under-invoicing by M/s Ganpati Overseas, which had imported tuners and saw filters from Hong Kong during 1997-1999. ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the importer had declared lower prices for the goods to evade customs duty. ​ The department relied on unattested photocopies of export declarations filed by the foreign supplier before the Hong Kong customs authority, which showed higher prices than those declared in the import invoices.

    The adjudicating authority rejected the import invoice prices and enhanced the value of the goods under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. ​ Penalties were imposed on the importer and its proprietor. ​ However, the CESTAT overturned this decision, leading to the department’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

    Source: Supreme Court

    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 Upholds Correct Classification of imported Aircraft Parts

    CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Correct Classification of imported Aircraft Parts

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.09.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Correct Classification of imported Aircraft Parts​ ​

    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), Bangalore, has delivered a judgment that reinforces the principles of classification under the Customs Tariff Act. The case, involving M/s. Dynamatic Technologies Limited, revolved around the classification of imported products used in aircraft. ​ The Tribunal’s decision not only provides clarity on the interpretation of Section XVII of the Customs Tariff but also sets a precedent for similar disputes in the future.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Dynamatic Technologies Limited had imported various products, including Aluminium Bushes Flanges, Aluminium Fittings, Bolts, and Grommets, claiming classification under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8803 9000, which pertains to aircraft parts. ​ The Revenue, however, reclassified these items under different headings such as CTH 7616 9990, 7318 1500, 7320 9090, 8108 9090, and 8207 9090, asserting that they were general articles of iron, steel, and aluminum. ​ This reclassification led to a demand of Rs. ​ 2,05,53,718/- along with interest and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    Aggrieved by the order, the appellant approached the Tribunal, arguing that the products were specifically designed for use in aircraft and should be classified under CTH 8803.

    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

  • Gujarat High Court Ruled that the DEPB license was valid at the time of import

    Gujarat High Court Ruled that the DEPB license was valid at the time of import

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.09.2025

    Gujarat High Court Ruled that the DEPB license was valid at the time of import​ ​ ​ Β 

    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 Gujarat High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Binani Cement Ltd., shedding light on the interplay between fraud, customs duty liability, and the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. This case serves as an important precedent for importers, exporters, and legal professionals navigating the complexities of customs law.

    Case Background

    The dispute arose when M/s Beni Exports obtained a Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) license in 2000, valued at Rs. ​ 94,56,252/-. Investigations revealed that the license was fraudulently obtained by manipulating export documents. ​ Consequently, the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) canceled the license on October 24, 2001. ​ However, before the cancellation, M/s Beni Exports had transferred the license to Binani Cement Ltd., which used it to import goods exempted from customs duty under Notification No. ​ 34/97-Cus dated April 7, 1997. ​ The Commissioner of Customs argued that since the license was invalidated due to fraud, the imports made using the license were liable for customs duty. ​ The department sought to recover the duty by invoking the extended limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, which allows recovery within five years in cases involving collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

    Source: Gujarat High Court

    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- The mandatory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs act was not followed by the Customs

    CESTAT Delhi- The mandatory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs act was not followed by the Customs

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- The mandatory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs act was not followed by the Customs ​ ​

    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 & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs imposed on Appellant, the former Managing Director of M/s Safetag International, under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards under Section 138B of the Customs Act when relying on statements recorded during investigations. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from allegations that M/s Safetag International fraudulently availed duty drawback of Rs. ​ 1,03,67,746/- by inflating the value of exported goods and failing to deliver them to the declared destination, Russia. ​ Following investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, a show cause notice was issued to seven noticees, including Appellant. ​ The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on M/s Safetag International and its Managing Director, Appellant, citing his alleged involvement in the fraudulent scheme.

    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 Kolkata provides clarity on the classification of Aluminium Formwork under Customs Tariff

    CESTAT Kolkata provides clarity on the classification of Aluminium Formwork under Customs Tariff

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata provides clarity on the classification of Aluminium Formwork under Customs Tariff​ ​

    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), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the demand of differential duty against M/s. ​ Unimarkmirania Projects LLP in a case concerning the classification of imported Aluminium Formwork Structures with Accessories. ​ The decision, delivered on September 12, 2025, brings clarity to the classification of such goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the applicability of exemption benefits under Customs Notification No. 152/2009.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when M/s. ​ Unimarkmirania Projects LLP imported Aluminium Formwork Structures with Accessories from the Republic of Korea under Bill of Entry No. ​ 4382970 dated August 6, 2019. ​ The importer classified the goods under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 76109010 and claimed exemption benefits under Sl. ​ No. 610 of Notification No. ​ 152/2009, as amended. ​ The Revenue, however, contested this classification, arguing that the goods should be classified under CTI 84806000 and that the exemption benefit should be availed under Sl. ​ No. 780 of the same notification. ​

    The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to reclassify the goods and recover differential duty, along with interest and penalties. ​ The adjudicating authority upheld the Revenue’s stance, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) affirmed this decision, though the penalty was dropped. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Tribunal.

    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

  • CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Duty Demand and Penalties in Alleged Undervaluation

    CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Duty Demand and Penalties in Alleged Undervaluation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Duty Demand and Penalties in Alleged Undervaluation​ ​ ​ Β 

    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), Chennai, has set aside the demand for differential duty and penalties imposed on M/s Swati Processors Pvt Ltd and its authorized signatory, Appellant, in connection with alleged undervaluation of imported goods. The case, which revolved around the import of “100% Viscose Rayon Embroidery Thread” during the period October 2005 to March 2006, has been a subject of contention for several years. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellants had filed four bills of entry for the clearance of imported goods through Chennai Seaport and Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nava Sheva Port. ​ Following an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad, allegations of undervaluation and evasion of customs duty surfaced. ​ A show cause notice was issued in April 2008, proposing rejection of the declared value, redetermination of the same, and demand for differential duty along with penalties under Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. ​ 2,26,928/- and imposed penalties on both appellants. ​ However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the confiscation and redemption fine but upheld the duty demand and penalties. ​ Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Tribunal.

    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 Chennai Allows SAD Refund Despite Procedural Lapse

    CESTAT Chennai Allows SAD Refund Despite Procedural Lapse

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 12.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Allows SAD Refund Despite Procedural Lapse​ ​

     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), Chennai, has set aside the rejection of refund claims filed by M/s. Palfinger Cranes India Pvt. ​ Ltd. for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. ​ The decision, delivered on September 11, 2025, highlights the importance of substantive compliance over procedural lapses in availing tax benefits under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Palfinger Cranes India Pvt. ​ Ltd. filed refund claims amounting to Rs. ​ 1,92,608/- and Rs. ​ 2,00,864/- for SAD paid on crane and crane parts imported under Bills of Entry dated May 18, 2012, and November 6, 2012. ​ The claims were made in accordance with Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Cus, which allows refund of SAD paid on imported goods if VAT or CST is paid on subsequent sales. ​ However, the claims were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and later by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) due to non-compliance with condition 2(b) of the notification, which mandates an endorsement on sales invoices stating that “no cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of 4% CVD.”

    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

  • Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods

    Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 12.09.2025

    Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods​ ​ ​ Β 

    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 judgment delivered on May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of M/s Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly known as M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Limited), directing the Union of India and its departments to refund amounts covered by bank guarantees encashed by the customs department. The judgment, authored by Justice, sets a significant precedent in the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and the interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute originated in 2002 when M/s M.P. ​ Glychem Industries Limited (later merged with Ruchi Soya Industries Limited) imported crude degummed soybean oil and filed a bill of entry for clearance. ​ The customs department demanded higher customs duty based on a tariff value fixed under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act. ​ The appellant contended that the notification fixing the tariff value was not in effect at the time of import, and duty should be assessed under Section 14(1) instead. ​

    To resolve the impasse, the Gujarat High Court directed the appellant to furnish bank guarantees for the differential duty amounts, allowing the goods to be cleared. ​ Subsequently, the appellant challenged the validity of the notification, but the High Court dismissed the writ petitions in 2012. ​ Following this, the customs department encashed the bank guarantees in 2013, even as the appellant’s appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. ​ In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant in the case of Union of India vs. Param Industries Limited, holding that the notification fixing the tariff value was not offered for sale at the time of import, making the customs department’s demand for differential duty unlawful.

    Source: Supreme Court

    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 Certificates of Origin for Gold and Diamond Imports from Thailand​

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Certificates of Origin for Gold and Diamond Imports from Thailand​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Certificates of Origin for Gold and Diamond Imports from Thailand​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a landmark judgment addressing the contentious issue of preferential duty claims on imports of gold and diamond-studded jewelry from Thailand. This decision, pronounced on August 29, 2023, has significant implications for importers, customs authorities, and international trade agreements.

    Background of the Case

    The appeals arose from disputes over the validity of preferential duty claims under Notification No. ​ 85/2004-Cus dated August 31, 2004, which provides reduced customs duty rates for goods originating from Thailand. The importers had furnished Certificates of Origin (COO) issued by the designated authority in Thailand to claim these benefits. ​ However, customs authorities questioned the authenticity of these certificates, alleging non-compliance with the “value addition” requirement stipulated under the Interim Rules of Origin. ​

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted investigations, leading to orders demanding differential duties and imposing penalties under Sections 28, 114A, and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The importers challenged these orders, arguing that the certificates were valid and issued by the competent authority in Thailand.

    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 Chennai Set Aside Duty Demand on Misrepresented Licenses

    CESTAT Chennai Set Aside Duty Demand on Misrepresented Licenses

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Set Aside Duty Demand on Misrepresented Licenses​ ​ ​ Β 

    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 & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has shed light on the legal nuances surrounding duty-free import licenses obtained through misrepresentation. The case, M/s. ​ M.R. & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport – Export), highlights the distinction between fraudulent licenses and licenses obtained by misrepresentation, offering clarity on the rights of innocent transferee importers.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s. ​ M.R. & Co., imported 13,940 kilograms of raw silk yarn valued at Rs. ​ 1,64,31,703/- duty-free using Duty-Free Replenishment Scheme (DFRC) licenses procured from M/s. ​ Shree Kuberappa & Sons. ​ Investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) revealed that the original exporter, M/s. ​ Shree Kuberappa & Sons, had misrepresented facts to obtain these licenses fraudulently. ​ Consequently, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) canceled the licenses in January 2010, years after the imports were made. ​

    The Customs authorities issued a Show Cause Notice to M/s. M.R. & Co., demanding duty of Rs. 50,39,604/- along with interest and penalties, and held the imported goods liable for confiscation. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

    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

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πšπ° 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐬 (π€π‹πŽ)

Your Own Law Office

Skip to content ↓