ALO Partners Logo

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

Tag: #ADD

  • CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Uzbekistan Origin, Rejects Revenue’s Attempt to Reclassify Goods as Iranian for ADD Levy

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Uzbekistan Origin, Rejects Revenue’s Attempt to Reclassify Goods as Iranian for ADD Levy

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.05.2026

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Uzbekistan Origin, Rejects Revenue’s Attempt to Reclassify Goods as Iranian for ADD Levy

    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 .  

    Keltech Energies Ltd. recently secured a significant victory at the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, in a case involving the import of ammonium nitrate. The dispute centered on the country of origin of the imported goods and the imposition of anti-dumping duties (ADD), with far-reaching implications for importers and customs authorities alike.

    Background of the Case

    Keltech Energies Ltd. imported ammonium nitrate, declaring Uzbekistan as the country of origin in seventeen Bills of Entry. The company provided a Country of Origin Certificate and sought exemption from ADD under Notification No. 44/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 12.09.2017. However, the customs authorities rejected the declared origin, treating the goods as Iranian and reassessed the imports, demanding Rs. 2,75,43,267/- in duty, imposing penalties, and confiscating the goods.

    Key Issues and Arguments

    1. Country of Origin Dispute

    • Keltech’s Position: The goods were manufactured in Uzbekistan, transported by road to Bandar Abbas, Iran (as Uzbekistan is landlocked), then shipped to Jebel Ali, Dubai, before arriving in India. Keltech submitted a valid Country of Origin Certificate and supporting documents, including purchase orders, invoices, and certificates from relevant authorities.
    • Customs’ Position: Authorities alleged mis-declaration, relying on statements and electronic evidence (such as WhatsApp chats) to claim the goods originated from Iran, thus subject to ADD.

    2. Evidence and Investigation

    • Keltech argued that the authorities failed to investigate or verify the authenticity of the Country of Origin Certificate. There was no allegation or proof that the certificate was forged or manipulated.
    • The customs authorities relied on statements and electronic evidence, but these were not corroborated or authenticated as required under Section 138C of the Customs Act.

    3. Principles of Natural Justice

    • Keltech highlighted that no cross-examination was offered for key statements relied upon by customs, violating principles of natural justice.
    • The company also pointed out discrimination, referencing another case where similar demands were dropped against another importer on identical grounds.

    Tribunal’s Findings

    • The CESTAT found that Keltech’s documentary evidence, including the Country of Origin Certificate, invoices, and transport documents, was credible and unrefuted.
    • The tribunal criticized customs authorities for relying on uncorroborated statements and unauthenticated electronic evidence, failing to subject primary evidence to proper scrutiny.
    • The lack of cross-examination and verification of the certificate was deemed a serious procedural lapse.
    • The tribunal noted discrimination in the treatment of Keltech compared to other importers.

    Final Order and Relief

    • The CESTAT set aside the customs authority’s order, allowing Keltech’s appeal and granting consequential relief.
    • The tribunal emphasized the importance of proper investigation, adherence to legal procedures, and respect for documentary evidence in customs disputes.

    Implications for Importers and Customs Authorities

    1. Strengthening Documentary Evidence: Importers should ensure robust documentation, including valid certificates and transport records, to support their claims.
    2. Procedural Fairness: Customs authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice, including offering cross-examination and verifying primary evidence.
    3. Legal Scrutiny of Electronic Evidence: Electronic evidence must be authenticated and corroborated as per legal requirements.
    4. Consistency in Decision-Making: Authorities should avoid discriminatory practices and ensure uniform application of law.

    Conclusion

    The Keltech Energies Ltd. case underscores the critical role of documentary evidence and procedural fairness in customs disputes. The CESTAT’s decision sets a precedent for importers facing similar challenges and highlights the need for customs authorities to conduct thorough, unbiased investigations.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Rejection of β‚Ή27.5 Lakh ADD Refund

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Rejection of β‚Ή27.5 Lakh ADD Refund

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.04.2026

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Rejection of β‚Ή27.5 Lakh ADD Refund

    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 idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com . Β 

    ​​ ​​   ​​ ​ ​​​  ​ ​

    This article delves into the legal case of M/s AKASAKA Electronic Ltd (now M/s MIRC Electronics Limited) versus the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, as adjudicated by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai. The case revolves around a refund dispute concerning Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) payments and the principle of unjust enrichment.

    Case Background

    The dispute originated from the provisional imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on Copper Clad Laminates imported by AKASAKA Electronic Ltd through nine Bills of Entry between September 19, 2003, and January 22, 2004.Β The ADD was later rescinded on January 22, 2004, as per Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995, which mandates the refund of provisional ADD if the duty is withdrawn without confirmation.

    Despite the withdrawal of the ADD, the appellant did not receive the refund of Rs.Β 27,51,395/- paid as ADD.Β After waiting for a year, the appellant filed a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which was rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment.Β The rejection was based on the observation that the duty amount was recorded as an expenditure in the appellant’s Profit & Loss Account rather than as a receivable.

    Legal Proceedings

    First Round of Litigation

    In the first round of litigation, the Tribunal remanded the matter back for re-adjudication, emphasizing that the appellant should be given an opportunity to substantiate their case with relevant documents.Β The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities’ contention that recording the duty amount as an expenditure in the Profit & Loss Account conclusively proved unjust enrichment.

    Second Round of Litigation

    Despite the Tribunal’s direction, the Refund Sanctioning Authority rejected the refund claim again, citing the appellant’s failure to provide conclusive evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers.Β The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Allied Photographic India Ltd, which stated that uniformity in price does not necessarily prove that the duty incidence was not passed on.

    Final Tribunal Decision

    In the second round of litigation, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that:

    • Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995, explicitly mandates the refund of provisional ADD if the duty is withdrawn, without requiring the importer to file a refund claim.
    • The rejection of the refund claim based on the principle of unjust enrichment was not supported by standard accounting principles.
    • The Tribunal cited multiple precedents, including M/s. EMA Lubes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ring Plus Aqua Ltd., to argue that the mere recording of the duty amount as an expenditure does not establish unjust enrichment.
    • The Tribunal also criticized the reliance on the Allied Photographic India Ltd case, stating that it was not applicable to the present case.

    The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in scrutinizing the refund claim under the principle of unjust enrichment, as Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995, clearly stipulates that the ADD should be refunded without such scrutiny.

    Final Order

    The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, to refund the Anti-Dumping Duty of Rs.Β 27,51,395/- along with applicable interest to the appellant within two months of the order date.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995: This rule mandates the refund of provisional ADD if the duty is withdrawn without confirmation, eliminating the need for a refund application.
    2. Unjust Enrichment: The principle of unjust enrichment cannot be conclusively established based solely on the recording of duty as an expenditure in financial statements.Β Standard accounting principles do not support this assumption.
    3. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal’s decision was supported by multiple precedents, which clarified the interpretation of unjust enrichment and the role of accounting practices in legal disputes.
    4. Importance of Proper Documentation: The case highlights the critical role of documentation, such as Chartered Accountant certificates and financial statements, in legal disputes involving tax refunds.

    Conclusion

    The case of AKASAKA Electronic Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and established accounting principles in legal disputes. It also serves as a reminder of the need for clear and consistent documentation to substantiate claims in tax-related matters. The Tribunal’s decision not only provides relief to the appellant but also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Anti-Dumping Duty Applicability During Notification Gap Period

    CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Anti-Dumping Duty Applicability During Notification Gap Period

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.03.2026

    CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Anti-Dumping Duty Applicability During Notification Gap Period

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of M/s. ​ SIBCO Overseas Pvt. ​ Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. ​ This case revolved around the retrospective applicability of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on imported PVC Flex Banner from China during a period when no provisional or definitive ADD notification was in force. ​ The judgment provides critical insights into the legal framework governing ADD and its retrospective application under Indian law. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s. SIBCO Overseas Pvt. ​ Ltd. imported PVC Flex Banner from China on June 4, 2011, under Bill of Entry No. ​ 3702906. At the time of import, no ADD notification was in force, as the provisional ADD imposed under Notification No. ​ 79/2010-CUS dated July 30, 2010, had expired on January 29, 2011. ​ Subsequently, Notification No. ​ 82/2011-CUS dated August 25, 2011, imposed definitive ADD with retrospective effect for five years from July 30, 2010, the date of imposition of the provisional ADD. ​

    The appellant challenged the retrospective applicability of the definitive ADD, arguing that no ADD notification was operative at the time of import. ​ Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about the delayed finalization of the provisional assessment, which took over ten years to complete.

    Key Legal Issues ​

    The case presented two primary legal questions:

    1. Retrospective Applicability of ADD: Could definitive ADD be levied retrospectively during the gap period between the expiration of the provisional ADD and the issuance of the definitive ADD notification? ​
    2. Delayed Finalization of Provisional Assessment: Was the delay in finalizing the provisional assessment legally permissible? ​

    Legal Framework

    The case involved the interpretation of several legal provisions, including:

    • Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962: Governs provisional assessment of duty and its finalization. ​
    • Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Provides for the imposition of ADD on dumped articles. ​
    • Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995: Specifies the procedures for imposing ADD, including provisions for provisional and definitive duties. ​
    • Customs (Finalization of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018: Introduced timelines for finalizing provisional assessments. ​

    Tribunal’s Observations

    1. Retrospective Applicability of ADD ​

    The Tribunal relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. G.M. ​ Exports (2015), which categorically held that ADD cannot be levied during the “gap period” between the expiration of provisional ADD and the imposition of definitive ADD. ​ The Court emphasized that retrospective levy of ADD is permissible only under specific circumstances outlined in Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, and any attempt to levy ADD during the gap period would render the relevant provisions ultra vires. ​

    The Tribunal also referred to other judicial precedents, including:

    • Hi-tech Computers v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore (2023): Held that ADD cannot be levied during the gap period. ​
    • Harsh Commodities Pvt. ​ Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla (2020): Confirmed that ADD cannot be imposed during the lapse between provisional and definitive notifications. ​
    • Forech India Ltd. v. Designated Authority (2018): Stated that ADD cannot be revived after its lapse without strict adherence to legal timelines. ​

    2. Delayed Finalization of Provisional Assessment ​

    The Tribunal noted that while the delay in finalizing the provisional assessment was concerning, it could not be legally faulted because the Customs (Finalization of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018, which introduced strict timelines for finalization, were not in force at the time of the import. ​ The Tribunal also observed that the delay was partly attributable to the appellant’s delayed response to the authorities’ communications. ​

    Key Takeaways from the Judgment

    1. No ADD During Gap Period: The Tribunal reaffirmed that ADD cannot be levied during the gap period between the expiration of provisional ADD and the issuance of definitive ADD notification. ​ This principle is in line with the Supreme Court’s judgment in G.M. ​ Exports and India’s obligations under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. ​
    2. Retrospective Levy Requires Strict Compliance: The retrospective imposition of ADD is permissible only under the strict conditions outlined in Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act and the ADD Rules. ​ Any deviation from these conditions renders the levy unsustainable. ​
    3. Delayed Finalization of Provisional Assessments: While the Tribunal acknowledged the delay in finalizing the provisional assessment, it noted that the absence of strict timelines at the material time made it legally permissible. ​ However, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely action by authorities to maintain trust in the system. ​
    4. Jurisdiction of Tribunal Benches: The Tribunal clarified that its jurisdiction to hear appeals related to ADD is not restricted to Special Benches unless the appeal pertains specifically to the determination of the existence, degree, and effect of dumping under Section 9C(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. ​

    Conclusion

    The judgment in the case of M/s. SIBCO Overseas Pvt. ​ Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, is a significant development in the realm of anti-dumping law in India. It underscores the importance of adhering to legal provisions and timelines for the imposition and finalization of ADD. ​ The Tribunal’s decision not only provides clarity on the retrospective applicability of ADD but also highlights the need for administrative efficiency in finalizing provisional assessments.​

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Calcutta High Court Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty on Titanium Dioxide Imports

    Calcutta High Court Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty on Titanium Dioxide Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.12.2025

    Calcutta High Court Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty on Titanium Dioxide Imports

    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 judgment, the Calcutta High Court recently quashed the anti-dumping duty imposed on Titanium Dioxide (Rutile Sulphate) imports from China. The case, filed by the Indian Paint Association against the Union of India and others, highlighted procedural irregularities and non-disclosure of essential information by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR).

    Background of the Case

    The Indian Paint Association, representing a major portion of the domestic paint industry, filed a writ petition challenging the DGTR’s final findings and the subsequent anti-dumping duty imposed by the Central Government. The petitioner argued that Rutile Sulphate was not commercially produced or sold by the domestic industry, and the DGTR failed to provide a non-confidential summary of the confidential information submitted by the domestic industry. ​ This lack of transparency, according to the petitioner, violated the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards outlined in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. ​

    Key Issues Raised

    The case revolved around several critical issues:

    1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The court ruled that the impact of the anti-dumping duty was felt at the petitioner’s registered office in Kolkata, establishing jurisdiction for the Calcutta High Court to hear the case. ​
    2. Premature Challenge: The court clarified that the amended Customs Tariff Act now allows appeals against the determination itself, making the challenge valid and not premature. ​
    3. Alternative Remedy: Although an appellate mechanism exists under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, the court noted that the relevant anti-dumping bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had not been functional for over a year, justifying the writ petition. ​
    4. Procedural Irregularities: The court found that the DGTR failed to provide essential facts and non-confidential summaries of confidential information, preventing the petitioner from effectively contesting the findings. ​
    5. Violation of Natural Justice: The court held that the DGTR’s actions violated principles of natural justice and procedural safeguards under the Anti-Dumping Rules and the WTO’s Anti-Dumping Agreement. ​

    Court’s Decision

    Justice ruled that the DGTR’s final findings were vitiated due to procedural lapses and non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the anti-dumping duty imposed by the Central Government was also quashed. The court remanded the matter back to the DGTR for reconsideration, directing it to address the petitioner’s concerns and comply with the procedural requirements under Rule 7(2) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. ​

    Implications of the Judgment

    This judgment underscores the importance of transparency and adherence to procedural safeguards in anti-dumping investigations. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness and accountability in administrative actions. ​ The decision is a significant win for the Indian Paint Association and sets a precedent for future cases involving anti-dumping duties.

    The case serves as a reminder that procedural fairness and compliance with statutory provisions are essential in protecting the rights of stakeholders and maintaining the integrity of trade remedies. As the matter is now remanded back to the DGTR, all eyes will be on the authority to ensure a fair and transparent reconsideration of the case.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Source: Calcutta High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Quashes β‚Ή4.6 Crore Anti-Dumping Duty Demand

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes β‚Ή4.6 Crore Anti-Dumping Duty Demand

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes β‚Ή4.6 Crore Anti-Dumping Duty Demand

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled in favor of Neo Wheels Ltd. and its representatives, in a case concerning alleged evasion of anti-dumping duty on aluminum alloy wheels imported from China. The judgment, delivered on July 24, 2025, brings clarity to the complex issue of anti-dumping duty and the validity of certificates of origin.

    Background of the Case

    Neo Wheels Ltd., a manufacturer of alloy wheels, imports semi-finished aluminum alloy wheels from Taiwan. The case arose from allegations that the company had routed imports through Taiwan to evade anti-dumping duty imposed on aluminum alloy wheels originating from China. ​ The anti-dumping duty was provisionally imposed in 2014 and later definitively imposed in 2015 at USD 2.15 per KG.

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation, scrutinizing 30 bills of entry filed by Neo Wheels Ltd. between December 5, 2014, and February 5, 2017. ​ The investigation alleged that the company had misdeclared the country of origin and evaded anti-dumping duty amounting to Rs. 4.62 crore. ​ Penalties were also proposed against the company and its representatives.

    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 Delhi- Refund of ADD Permissible Despite Clerical Self-Assessment Error

    CESTAT Delhi- Refund of ADD Permissible Despite Clerical Self-Assessment Error

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.07.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Refund of ADD Permissible Despite Clerical Self-Assessment Error

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi has ruled that the refund of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) paid due to a clerical self-assessment error is admissible, provided substantive conditions are met. The Tribunal held that procedural lapses cannot defeat substantive rights, especially when the excess duty paid is evident from the Bill of Entry and supported by a valid exemption.

    Case Background

    • Appellant: Uflex Limited, Noida
    • Import: 29 boxes of Aluminium Foil (6.3 microns) from China
    • Bill of Entry: No. 2535627 dated 21.09.2022
    • Declared Value: β‚Ή68.29 lakh
    • Duty Paid: Basic Customs Duty, SWS, IGST, and ADD, despite ADD being exempted for 6.3-micron aluminium foil under Notification No. 51/2021-Cus (ADD) dated 16.09.2021
    • Refund Sought: β‚Ή7,14,018/- (β‚Ή6,05,100 ADD + β‚Ή1,08,918 IGST)

    Due to a clerical error, Uflex self-assessed and paid ADD. The company filed:

    • A request for reassessment on 12.10.2022
    • A refund application on 13.10.2022

    Both were rejected, citing:

    • Finality of self-assessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act
    • Supreme Court decisions in Priya Blue Industries and ITC Ltd.

    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 Chennai- Valuation and Weight Allegations Not Sustainable

    CESTAT Chennai- Valuation and Weight Allegations Not Sustainable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.05.2025

    CESTAT Chennai- Valuation and Weight Allegations Not Sustainable

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench ruled in favor of M/s. Tech Zone Global Trading Company and several other importers, setting aside the confiscation, duty demands, and penalties imposed for allegedly misdeclaring the origin and value of imported PVC flex banners to evade anti-dumping duty (ADD).

    Case Background:

    • The importers were accused of routing Chinese-origin PVC flex banners through Malaysia, misusing Country of Origin (COO) certificates to claim AIFTA benefits and evade ADD.
    • The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated action based on the allegation that importers, including Tech Zone, misdeclared the country of origin and underreported quantity and value.

    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 Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.04.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench (Court No. 2) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against M/s Kiran Trading Company, thereby upholding the order of the Commissioner (Port), Kolkata, which had dropped proceedings initiated under a DRI show cause notice.

    Case Background:

    1. The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Original dated 23.10.2018, which dropped charges of mis-declaration of value and evasion of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on imports of Chinese-origin Melamine by M/s Kiran Trading Company. ​
    2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged over-invoicing to evade ADD, based on investigations and analysis of import patterns.

    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 Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com