ALO Partners Logo

𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐎)

Latest Posts

  • CESTAT Delhi Clears HP India in Misdeclaration Allegation on Laptop Imports

    CESTAT Delhi Clears HP India in Misdeclaration Allegation on Laptop Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Clears HP India in Misdeclaration Allegation on Laptop Imports

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi has delivered a favorable verdict for HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a ₹2.8 crore duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, in a case involving alleged misdeclaration of imported laptops intended for after-sales warranty service.

    Background of the Dispute

    • HP India had imported 1113 laptop units of various models through Nhava Sheva port, declaring them as warranty support stock, intended exclusively for after-sales service and not for retail sale.
    • Customs authorities alleged misdeclaration of model numbers and invoked extended limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, claiming that the laptops were not eligible for concessional duty.
    • A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued demanding differential duty of ₹2,80,21,293 along with interest and penalty under Section 114A.

    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 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 Ahmedabad Upholds Correct Classification of Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel under CTH 7210

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Upholds Correct Classification of Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel under CTH 7210

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.06.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Upholds Correct Classification of Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel under CTH 7210

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has ruled in favor of the appellant-importer, KLJ Polymers & Chemicals Limited, setting aside a reclassification attempt and differential duty demand initiated by the customs department. The dispute revolved around whether the imported product—Pre-painted Galvanized Steel Sheets—should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7210 70, as declared by the importer, or under CTH 7225 99, as proposed by the department on grounds of alleged alloy content.

    Dispute Summary

    • Product: Colour-coated galvanized steel coils/sheets.
    • Declared Classification by Importer: CTH 7210 (covering flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, plated or coated).
    • Revenue’s Allegation: The product contains alloying elements (including boron), qualifying it under CTH 7225 for other alloy steel.

    The customs authorities alleged suppression of facts and misdeclaration by the importer and raised a demand of differential duty, invoking extended limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act.

    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 DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Clears Customs Broker of ₹50 Lakh Penalty in Alleged IEC Misuse

    CESTAT Delhi Clears Customs Broker of ₹50 Lakh Penalty in Alleged IEC Misuse

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Clears Customs Broker of ₹50 Lakh Penalty in Alleged IEC Misuse

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside penalties imposed on M/s GND Cargo Movers, a licensed customs broker, for alleged violations related to the misuse of an Importer Exporter Code (IEC). The judgment, authored by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member), nullifies the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 31 May 2019, upholding the principles of procedural justice and statutory compliance under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Case Background

    • The customs broker was penalized ₹50 lakhs under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly abetting appellant and others in misusing the IEC of M/s Trip Communications Pvt. Ltd. (TCPL).
    • The Department alleged that the broker knowingly facilitated the clearance of goods under a misrepresented IEC, violating Regulations 13(d) and (e) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.

    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 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 Bangalore Partly Allows BPL’s Appeal in Import Dispute

    CESTAT Bangalore Partly Allows BPL’s Appeal in Import Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.06.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Partly Allows BPL’s Appeal in Import Dispute

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, in a significant judgment dated 4th June 2025, delivered its final ruling in a long-standing legal battle involving M/s BPL Limited and the Commissioner of Customs. The central issue revolved around the misuse of customs duty exemption meant for implantable/internal-use defibrillators, whereas BPL Ltd allegedly imported components for external-use defibrillators, thereby wrongly availing exemption under Customs Notification Nos. 11/1997, 23/1998, and 20/1999.

    Case Summary:

    Three appeals were clubbed together:

    • C/355/2003: M/s BPL Ltd challenging the customs duty demand.
    • C/356/2003: Penalty appeal by General Manager of BPL Ltd.
    • C/21182/2017: Second round appeal against a related Order-in-Appeal dated 28.04.2017.

    BPL Ltd had imported relays, capacitors, and other components stating they would be used in the manufacture of implantable/internal-use DC defibrillators and pacemakers. These goods were exempt from customs duty under specific notifications. However, investigations revealed that the devices manufactured were primarily for external use and not eligible for exemption.

    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 Delhi Upholds Importer’s Tariff Classification

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds Importer’s Tariff Classification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds Importer’s Tariff Classification

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, allowed the appeal of M/s Motherson Bergstrom HVAC Solutions Pvt. Ltd., setting aside the customs demand raised on account of alleged misclassification of imported automotive air conditioning components. The Tribunal’s detailed decision reaffirms the primacy of Note 2(a) of Section XVI in tariff classification and reasserts settled jurisprudence that specific tariff headings under Chapters 84 and 85 prevail over general residual classifications.

    Background of the Case:

    The appellant, M/s Motherson Bergstrom, imported various parts and assemblies such as blowers, filters, water valve assemblies, thermostats, modules, and control panels, classifying them under individual tariff headings of Chapters 84, 85, and 90. The Customs department reclassified the goods under CTI 8415 90 00 (parts of air conditioners), demanded differential customs duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, and initiated reassessment proceedings.

    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 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 Sets Aside Penalty for Alleged Role in Foreign Gold Smuggling

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalty for Alleged Role in Foreign Gold Smuggling

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.06.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalty for Alleged Role in Foreign Gold Smuggling

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench, has ruled in favour of an appellant who was penalized ₹30 lakhs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged involvement in gold smuggling from Bhutan. The case highlights the importance of independent corroborative evidence when imposing penalties, particularly in cases involving sensitive imports like gold.

    Case Background

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Siliguri, conducted a series of seizures involving smuggled foreign origin gold allegedly routed through Bhutan and subsequently melted in Indian melting units.

    The appellant, who owned a gold melting unit, was charged with:

    • Aiding in the concealment and melting of smuggled gold.
    • Violating Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
    • Being part of a conspiracy involving illegal import and laundering of foreign gold.
    • The adjudicating authority had imposed a personal penalty of ₹30 lakhs on the appellant, citing statements made by alleged co-conspirators.

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi- Customs Cannot Invoke Section 28AAA Without DGFT Cancellation

    CESTAT Delhi- Customs Cannot Invoke Section 28AAA Without DGFT Cancellation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Customs Cannot Invoke Section 28AAA Without DGFT Cancellation

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has set aside the confiscation and penalty orders issued against New Era Trading Pvt. Ltd., a ready-made garments exporter, under the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around alleged misuse of the Focus Market Scheme (FMS) benefits, with the Revenue Department invoking Section 28AAA, alleging diversion of goods and fraudulent claims.

    Background of the Case

    New Era Trading Pvt. Ltd. had exported garments under the Focus Market Scheme to various countries including Panama and the Netherlands, on FOB (Free on Board) terms. The freight forwarding was handled by Concorde Shipping & Logistics India, based on buyer instructions.

    Later, it was discovered that the goods, allegedly destined for notified countries, had actually landed in Dubai, a non-notified destination under the scheme.

    This led to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in January 2020, alleging:

    • Misuse of FMS scrips worth ₹4.14 crore
    • Goods liable for confiscation under Section 113(d), (g), and (i)
    • Proposal of penalties under Sections 114(iii), 114AA, and 114AB

    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 Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Restores Customs Broker License in IGST Refund Allegation

    CESTAT Mumbai Restores Customs Broker License in IGST Refund Allegation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Restores Customs Broker License in IGST Refund Allegation

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai quashed the revocation of the customs broker license of Horizon Cleford Private Limited, holding that the allegations of regulatory violations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 were unfounded and procedurally flawed.

    The tribunal’s verdict brings significant relief to customs brokers facing scrutiny over their clients’ export transactions, especially where allegations involve overvaluation and misuse of IGST refund schemes.

    Background of the Case

    Horizon Cleford Pvt. Ltd., a licensed customs broker in Mumbai, had filed three shipping bills in November 2018 for an exporter—M/s Jamilar International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi—declaring exports of USB cables. These were later alleged to be overvalued with the intention of fraudulently claiming ineligible IGST refunds.

    Key allegations by the Customs Department:

    • Inflated FOB values declared to secure IGST refund of ₹13.08 lakh instead of an admissible ₹1.68 lakh.
    • The exporter was found untraceable at the registered addresses.
    • Horizon Cleford was accused of violating Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018.
    • Based on these findings, the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai passed an order on 19th July 2024 revoking the CB license, forfeiting the security deposit, and imposing a penalty.

    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 Bangalore Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Gardner Aerospace Upon EODC Submission

    CESTAT Bangalore Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Gardner Aerospace Upon EODC Submission

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.06.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Gardner Aerospace Upon EODC Submission

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench delivered a favorable judgment in Appeal Nos. C/20784 and C/20785 of 2016, filed by M/s. Gardner Aerospace Pranitha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The appeals challenged the demand of customs duty and penalties imposed due to non-submission of the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) under Notification No. 96/2009-Cus. dated 11.09.2009.

    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 Kolkata- Interest Not Payable on Pre-2006 Provisional Assessments

    CESTAT Kolkata- Interest Not Payable on Pre-2006 Provisional Assessments

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.06.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata- Interest Not Payable on Pre-2006 Provisional Assessments

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Century Pulp & Paper, ruling that no interest is payable upon finalization of provisional assessments made before the introduction of Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    This decision, issued via Final Order No. 75183/2024 dated 08.02.2024, affirms that interest liability under Section 18(3) is prospective and cannot apply retrospectively to imports assessed provisionally before 13.07.2006, the date on which this provision was inserted via the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006.

    Case Background

    • Appellant: M/s. Century Pulp & Paper
    • Issue: Whether interest was payable on customs duty upon final assessment of imports made in 1997-98, assessed provisionally under project import classification (CTH 9801).
    • Timeline:
      • Goods imported in 1997–98
      • Provisional assessments conducted under the old law
      • Reclassification occurred in 2011–12 due to non-commissioning of the project
      • Duty of ₹92.83 lakhs was paid post-finalization in 2014
      • Interest was demanded by Customs, challenged by the importer

    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

𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐎)

Your Own Law Office

Skip to content ↓