𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Advocate

Delhi High Court Rejects Bare Refusal of Slogan Trademark Application
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 04.11.2026

Delhi High Court Rejects Bare Refusal of Slogan Trademark Application

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 held that the slogan “WHAT DO YOU SEE?” could function as a trademark and set aside its refusal because the Trade Marks Registry gave no adequate reasons to treat it as non-distinctive or descriptive.

Background of the dispute

A Dot Limited applied to register “WHAT DO YOU SEE?” as a trademark for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 26, 41 and 45. These classes broadly cover items such as printed matter, clothing, lace and embroidery-related goods, education and entertainment services, and certain personal or legal services.

The Trade Marks Registry refused the application in December 2018. Its stated basis was Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars registration of marks that are:
- devoid of distinctive character; or
- exclusively descriptive of the kind, quality, purpose, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services.
Although the refusal order also referred to Section 11, which concerns conflict with earlier trademarks, the accompanying grounds did not explain any such objection or identify conflicting marks. The Court therefore confined its review to the Section 9 objections.

Why the Court disagreed with the refusal

The Court found that the Registry had not provided a reasoned basis for concluding that “WHAT DO YOU SEE?” lacked distinctiveness or described the applicant’s goods and services.

The phrase is made up of ordinary English words, but that alone does not make it unregistrable. The Court treated it as a tagline or slogan capable of operating as a source identifier, provided it does not directly describe the relevant products or services.

In ordinary use, “What do you see?” is a question inviting a person’s perception, interpretation, opinion, or observation. It does not describe the time, quality, quantity, intended purpose, or another characteristic of the goods and services covered by A Dot Limited’s application. As a result, the phrase was not inherently descriptive in the way Section 9(1)(b) requires.

The Court also noted its earlier view that slogans and taglines should be assessed like word marks when a trademark application is examined.

Additional factors considered

The decision records that A Dot Limited had obtained registrations for the identical mark in jurisdictions including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel. It also noted that an Indian device mark containing the same phrase as a tagline had already been registered.

These facts did not replace the statutory analysis under Indian law, but they supported the conclusion that the phrase was capable of functioning as a trademark.

The Court’s directions

The High Court allowed the appeal and issued the following directions:
1. Set aside the refusal order and statement of grounds.
2. Direct the Trade Marks Registry to process the application.
3. Require advertisement of the mark within three months.
4. Preserve the right of third parties to oppose, with any opposition to be decided independently on its merits.
5. Limit protection to the complete phrase “WHAT DO YOU SEE?” used as a combination of words.
6. Deny exclusive rights in the individual words “WHAT,” “DO,” “YOU,” or “SEE?” separately. This limitation must be reflected in the Trade Marks Journal if the application proceeds to registration.
Key legal takeaway for trademark applicants

This ruling reinforces that a slogan cannot be rejected merely because it consists of dictionary words. The relevant question is whether, in relation to the specified goods and services, the phrase directly describes their characteristics or is incapable of distinguishing one trader’s offerings from another’s.

For brand owners, the decision is particularly useful where a proposed mark is a short tagline, question, or expressive phrase. A clear explanation of how the phrase functions as a badge of commercial origin, coupled with evidence of use or registration where available, can help address objections based on lack of distinctiveness or descriptiveness.

At the same time, the case illustrates an important limitation: registration of a phrase may protect only the phrase as a whole, not the ordinary words within it.

The outcome preserves room for others to use common words fairly and independently while allowing the combined expression to proceed through the trademark-registration process.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 4, 2026
Delhi HC Says Right to Speedy Trial Can Prevail Over Section 37 NDPS Rigours
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 04.11.2026

Delhi HC Says Right to Speedy Trial Can Prevail Over Section 37 NDPS Rigours

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 granted regular bail to an accused in a commercial-quantity narcotics case, holding that the prolonged delay in trial and the absence of any delay attributable to the accused justified relief despite the stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act.

Case background

In Harikrishnan PS v. Narcotics Control Bureau, decided on 2 November 2026, the accused sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. These provisions concern possession, dealing, and conspiracy relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

According to the prosecution, authorities intercepted a DTDC parcel bearing the accused’s name and particulars. The parcel allegedly contained 480 grams of charas and 60 grams of methamphetamine. The prosecution further alleged that, after the accused was apprehended from a guesthouse, an additional 140 grams of methamphetamine was recovered at his instance.

Because the alleged recovery involved commercial quantity, the restrictive “twin conditions” for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act ordinarily applied.

Why the Court granted bail

The central issue was not the alleged quantity of contraband, but the continued incarceration of the accused amid a trial that had made limited progress.

The accused had been in custody since 7 December 2021. Of the 26 prosecution witnesses listed, only eight had been examined by the time the bail application was considered. Further delay was expected because co-accused Nafi had been arrested later, requiring the witnesses already examined to be recalled.

Importantly, the Narcotics Control Bureau fairly accepted before the Court that the delay in trial could not be attributed to the accused. The Court also noted that another co-accused, Paschal, had already been granted bail on 12 August 2026 on the ground of trial delay.

Expeditious trial and Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Section 37 makes bail in commercial-quantity NDPS cases particularly difficult. Generally, a court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

However, the High Court reaffirmed that the constitutional requirement of an expeditious trial can affect the application of these strict conditions. Where an accused remains in custody for a substantial period, the trial is moving slowly, and the accused is not responsible for the delay, continued detention may become unjustified.

The Court found that the trial was not likely to conclude within a reasonable time. In those circumstances, it held that there was no reason to deprive the accused of liberty any further.

Bail conditions

The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the accused on furnishing:
- a personal bond of Rs.50,000; and
- one surety of the same amount,
subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

The order was also directed to be promptly sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent so that the accused could be informed.

Key legal significance

This ruling highlights an important safeguard in NDPS prosecutions: stringent statutory bail restrictions do not eliminate the accused’s right to a timely trial. Even in cases involving alleged commercial quantities, courts may grant bail where detention becomes prolonged, the prosecution has examined only a small portion of its witnesses, and the accused has not caused the delay.

The decision reinforces that criminal trials must proceed with reasonable speed, particularly where a person’s liberty has been restricted for years without a foreseeable conclusion to the case.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 4, 2026
CESTAT Allahabad Holds Customs Refund Claim Not Time-Barred Where Amount Was Security
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 04.11.2026

CESTAT Allahabad Holds Customs Refund Claim Not Time-Barred Where Amount Was Security

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), Allahabad, has held that Rs. 30 lakh deposited by Tin Manufacturing Company of India under directions of the Allahabad High Court was a court-directed deposit, not customs duty, and therefore the one-year refund limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not apply.

Background of the dispute

The dispute dates back to 1987, when M/s Tin Manufacturing Company of India imported tin sheets at Mumbai. Customs alleged that the goods had been misdeclared, after which they were transferred to the Central Warehousing Corporation’s public bonded warehouse at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad.

The then Collector of Customs, Bombay decided the matter in the company’s favour in October 1989. When the company later sought clearance of the warehoused goods, Customs required it to file an ex-bond bill of entry. The company challenged this requirement before the Allahabad High Court.

During the writ proceedings, the High Court directed the company to deposit Rs. 30 lakh in cash and furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 13.15 lakh to secure release of the goods. The company complied and obtained release.

The writ petition was later dismissed for want of prosecution in 2009. Subsequent recall applications were unsuccessful. However, in February 2018, the High Court clarified that, if entitled to a customs refund, the company could pursue the appropriate legal remedy.

Why the refund claim was rejected earlier

The company filed a refund claim for Rs. 18,91,396. The Customs department rejected it, initially in 2019 and again after remand in 2022. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on two principal grounds:
- The claimant had not produced documents considered sufficient under Section 27(1A) of the Customs Act.
- The claim had been filed almost 20 years after the amount was paid, far beyond the one-year limitation applicable to refunds of customs duty.
The appellate authority treated the Rs. 30 lakh payment and the Rs. 13.15 lakh bank guarantee as part of a customs-duty liability said to be Rs. 43.15 lakh.

Tribunal’s key finding: the amount was a deposit, not duty

CESTAT disagreed with that approach. It found that no proper customs assessment had been made when the cash deposit and bank guarantee were furnished. Both were provided solely because the High Court had required security for release of the goods.

The Tribunal placed particular weight on the nature of the bank guarantee. Customs duty is not paid through a bank guarantee; its presence showed that the amounts were security deposits toward a possible future liability rather than assessed customs duty.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the payment could not be treated as customs duty merely because Customs later sought to characterize it that way. Since the claim concerned recovery of a court-directed deposit rather than a refund of assessed duty, the limitation and evidentiary requirements relied upon under Section 27(1A) did not govern the case.

Legal principles applied by CESTAT

The Tribunal relied on the principle that an amount paid without a legally determined tax liability does not automatically acquire the character of tax or duty. It referred to decisions including Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. KVR Construction and the ruling upheld in Credible Engineering v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.

Those decisions recognize that statutory refund limitation provisions do not bar repayment where the amount was paid under a mistake of law or was not legally payable as tax in the first place. The underlying rationale is that the government cannot retain money when it had no authority to treat it as a legally due tax or duty.

Final order and implications

CESTAT set aside the order rejecting the refund. It held that Tin Manufacturing Company of India is entitled to the refund, together with applicable interest calculated from the date of the High Court-directed deposit until the date the refund is made.

The ruling is significant for customs disputes involving deposits, pre-deposits, securities, or payments made under court directions. It reinforces that the substance of a payment matters more than its label: where there is no final assessment or established duty liability, a court-directed payment may remain a refundable deposit rather than customs duty subject to the standard statutory refund deadline.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 4, 2026
Bombay High Court: Registrars Must Not Mechanically Disqualify Society Committee Members
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 04.11.2026

Bombay High Court: Registrars Must Not Mechanically Disqualify Society Committee Members

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her mob no- +91 8726929060 and email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a cooperative housing society office-bearer cannot be disqualified automatically for failing to supply records: the Registrar must first assess whether the refusal was deliberate, unjustified, and serious enough to warrant that consequence.

Background of the dispute

The case arose from Ishan Co-operative Housing Society in Wakad, Pune, whose land and membership history had been subject to prolonged disputes. Several plot allottees, including Ramdas Baban Kate and Dhanraj Charansingh Birda, were recognised as deemed members through orders passed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

After an administrator-led election in November 2021, Kate became Chairman of the society. Within two weeks, Birda sought copies of election-related records, meeting minutes, membership registers, audit reports, and other society documents. He enclosed Rs. 1,000 and offered to pay additional copying charges.

The society, through its Chairman, declined the request. The stated reason was that Birda was not considered a society member at that time. The Deputy Registrar had directed the society to provide the documents, but the refusal continued.

The disqualification orders

Birda initiated proceedings under Section 154B-23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Deputy Registrar initially disqualified Kate for five years in July 2022. That decision was remanded in revision, but the Deputy Registrar again imposed a five-year disqualification in January 2023. The Divisional Joint Registrar upheld it in October 2023.

The disqualification was based on Section 154B-8(2), which requires a society to provide members with copies of specified records on a written request and payment of the prescribed fees. Section 154B-23 provides for disqualification where a committee member is held responsible for violating that obligation.

The High Court stayed the disqualification in March 2025 and ultimately heard the matter finally instead of deciding a later application seeking vacation of the stay.

The key legal issue: Is disqualification automatic?

The Court held that it is not. While the statute makes the consequences of a validly established disqualification mandatory, it does not require the Registrar to mechanically declare a committee member disqualified whenever documents have not been supplied.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne explained that the Registrar must conduct a fact-specific assessment of whether the concerned office-bearer should actually be held responsible for the failure under Section 154B-8(2). This requires consideration of the nature of the breach, the reasons for non-compliance, the duration of the default, its effect on transparency, and whether there was any deliberate attempt to conceal wrongdoing or misuse authority.

The Court stressed that Sections 154B-8 and 154B-23 are intended to secure transparency in housing societies, not to remove elected committee members for every technical lapse. A five-year bar is a serious civil consequence, particularly because it may exceed the normal tenure of a managing committee.

Why the Chairman’s refusal was treated differently

Although Kate had refused to provide the requested records, the Court found that the circumstances did not establish a deliberate or mala fide denial.

An earlier auditor and administrator had prepared a membership list for the 2021 election that excluded 52 persons who had allegedly not paid amounts toward their lease plots. Birda was among the persons excluded. When the newly elected committee received his request, it had not yet obtained all society records. The Chairman relied on the administrator’s report and the election-related membership list in believing that Birda was not entitled to seek the documents as a member.

The Court noted that both Kate and Birda had earlier secured deemed membership under common orders. However, the later administrative records had created a genuine doubt about Birda’s membership status. The Court therefore concluded that the refusal was based on a belief formed from the available records, rather than an oblique motive to withhold information.

The requested documents were also supplied later. In these unusual circumstances, the Court held that the Chairman’s conduct did not amount to a deliberate violation warranting disqualification.

Principles clarified by the judgment

The ruling reinforces several important standards for cooperative housing societies and Registrars:
- Members have a statutory right to records. Societies must ordinarily provide the documents listed in Section 154B-8(1), including minutes, audited financial statements, committee-member lists, and membership registers.
- The right supports transparency. Withholding records to hide financial irregularities, misuse of power, or significant committee decisions can justify strict action.
- A breach alone is not decisive. The Registrar must determine whether the office-bearer is truly responsible for the default and whether it was intentional, unjustified, or harmful.
- Context matters. Genuine uncertainty, prompt corrective conduct, and substantial compliance may weigh against disqualification.
- Sanctions must be proportionate. A five-year disqualification should reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and cannot be imposed mechanically for a minor or technical lapse.
The Court distinguished cases in which society committees had deliberately withheld records despite repeated requests and official directions. In those matters, the refusal indicated disregard for transparency and justified disqualification. Here, the evidence did not show a comparable attempt to conceal wrongdoing.

Final outcome

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside both the Deputy Registrar’s order dated 30 January 2023 and the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order dated 12 October 2023. Kate’s five-year disqualification was therefore cancelled, and the related interim application was disposed of.

The judgment confirms that transparency obligations in cooperative housing societies are enforceable, but the power to disqualify elected committee members must be exercised with careful, evidence-based, and proportionate consideration of the actual circumstances.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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: Bombay 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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 4, 2026
Delhi HC: Trademark Registry Cannot Reject Marks Based on Imaginary or Conjectural Descriptiveness
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 03.11.2026

Delhi HC: Trademark Registry Cannot Reject Marks Based on Imaginary or Conjectural Descriptiveness

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 set aside the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to register “DOUBLE-CHOICE” for rice, flour and cereal preparations, holding that the mark must be assessed as a whole and that a proposed-to-be-used application cannot be rejected for lacking acquired distinctiveness through use.

Background of the dispute

Kapil Goyal applied on 20 June 2023 to register “DOUBLE-CHOICE” in Class 30 for rice, flour and preparations made from cereals. The application was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, meaning the mark had not yet been used in the marketplace.

The Trade Marks Registry objected under Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It concluded that the mark lacked distinctiveness, was composed of non-distinctive words, and was descriptive of the kind and intended purpose of the relevant goods. The Registry also found that the mark had not acquired secondary meaning because it had not been used in the market.

Following a hearing, the application was refused on 24 January 2025. Kapil Goyal appealed to the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Act.

Key issues before the Court

The dispute centred on three connected questions:
- Whether “DOUBLE-CHOICE” was inherently incapable of distinguishing one trader’s goods from those of another.
- Whether the expression directly described rice, flour or cereal preparations.
- Whether the absence of prior market use could justify refusal of an application filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis.
The Court’s findings

A composite trademark cannot be broken into isolated words

The Court held that a trademark must be evaluated in its entirety. Although “DOUBLE” and “CHOICE” are individually common English words, their combination had to be assessed as the composite expression “DOUBLE-CHOICE”.

On that basis, the Court found that the expression was not so common or devoid of distinction that it could not identify the commercial source of the applicant’s goods. The Registry had not identified any identical or similar marks, nor had it explained why use of “DOUBLE-CHOICE” would make it impossible for consumers to distinguish the applicant’s goods from those of other traders.

The mark was not shown to be descriptive

The Registry had reasoned that “DOUBLE-CHOICE” referred to a situation involving two options and therefore described a variety or consumer choice connected with the products. The Court rejected that reasoning as unsupported by evidence.

It noted that the refusal order did not clarify which products consumers would supposedly be choosing between. There was no factual material showing that the mark denoted product variety, two alternatives, or any feature of the rice and cereal goods. The Court characterized this conclusion as conjectural rather than evidence-based.

A mark is not descriptive merely because its words have dictionary meanings. To attract the statutory bar, the expression must directly indicate a characteristic, quality, kind, purpose or other attribute of the specific goods. The Court found no such direct connection between “DOUBLE-CHOICE” and rice, flour or cereal preparations.

Non-use is irrelevant for a proposed-to-be-used application

The Court also held that the Registry’s reliance on non-use and lack of secondary meaning was legally misplaced. Where an application is expressly filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, the applicant cannot be expected to show that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through actual market use.

Requiring proof of prior use in such cases would undermine the statutory recognition of proposed-to-be-used trademark applications. The relevant inquiry was whether the mark was registrable on its own merits, not whether it had already acquired a reputation through use.

Outcome

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the refusal order dated 24 January 2025, and directed the Trade Marks Registry to advertise “DOUBLE-CHOICE” in Class 30. After advertisement, the application is to proceed in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

Why the ruling matters

This decision reinforces important principles for trademark applicants and examiners:
- Assess the mark as a whole: Common individual words do not automatically make their combination non-distinctive.
- Require a direct descriptive link: A refusal for descriptiveness must be tied to a real and immediate characteristic of the claimed goods, not a speculative association.
- Give reasoned decisions: A refusal should explain why the mark cannot distinguish the applicant’s goods and should be grounded in relevant material.
- Respect proposed-to-be-used filings: Absence of market use cannot be treated as a defect where the application is validly filed on that basis.
The ruling offers a clear reminder that trademark examination must rest on the actual commercial impression created by a mark and on evidence-based reasoning, rather than on the separate meanings of its component words.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 3, 2026
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 “Diyas” and “mAntra.” 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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 3, 2026
Karnataka HC Grants Regular Bail After Treating Ganja Seizure as Intermediate Quantity
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 03.11.2026

Karnataka HC Grants Regular Bail After Treating Ganja Seizure as Intermediate Quantity

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 Karnataka High Court granted regular bail to Kiran Kumar, finding that the alleged seizure fell within the intermediate-quantity category, the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply, and the investigation was nearly complete.

Background of the case

The case arose from Crime No. 105/2026 registered at Mandya West Police Station. Police alleged that, on 11 August 2026, they received information that two individuals were attempting to sell ganja to members of the public and students within the station limits.

Following the information, police conducted a raid and apprehended two accused persons. The prosecution alleged that a total of 1 kg and 25 grams of ganja was recovered and seized under a panchanama. Of this, 810 grams was alleged to have been recovered from Kiran Kumar, who was arraigned as Accused No. 1.

Kiran Kumar was arrested on 11 August 2026 and remanded to judicial custody. His earlier bail application was rejected by the trial court on 15 September 2026. He then approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in the case registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Why the High Court granted bail

Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty considered the quantity allegedly seized, the petitioner’s criminal record, and the status of the investigation.

1. The alleged quantity was treated as intermediate quantity

The Court noted that the total alleged recovery was slightly more than 1 kg of ganja. It treated this as an intermediate quantity rather than a commercial quantity. This classification was important because the stricter bail limitations applicable to commercial-quantity NDPS cases were not attracted.

2. Section 37’s stringent bail restriction was held inapplicable

The Court specifically observed that the rigor of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act could not be applied against the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. Section 37 imposes additional restrictions on bail in specified serious NDPS matters, particularly those involving commercial quantities.

3. No prior NDPS case was shown against the petitioner

The order records that Kiran Kumar had no other case registered against him for offences under the NDPS Act. The absence of prior NDPS allegations weighed in favour of granting bail.

4. Investigation was almost complete

The Court also took into account that the investigation was nearly complete. This reduced the concern that the petitioner’s release could interfere with the investigative process.

Bail conditions imposed by the Court

Although the petition was allowed, the High Court made the release subject to safeguards intended to secure the petitioner’s participation in the trial and protect the prosecution process. Kiran Kumar must:
- Execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
- Appear regularly before the trial court on every hearing date, unless exempted for valid reasons.
- Refrain from directly or indirectly threatening, influencing, or tampering with prosecution witnesses.
- Not commit similar offences in the future.
- Remain within the jurisdiction of the trial court unless permission is granted to leave, until the criminal case is disposed of.
Legal significance of the order

The order illustrates that bail in an NDPS prosecution depends heavily on the alleged quantity of contraband, the applicability of Section 37, the accused person’s prior record, and the stage of investigation. The Court did not decide guilt or innocence; it made a limited determination that regular bail could be granted with conditions while the case proceeds before the trial court.

The petition was allowed on 30 October 2026, and Kiran Kumar was ordered to be released on bail subject to compliance with the stated conditions.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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: Karnataka 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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 3, 2026
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Registrar’s NOC for Commercial Use of Residential Society Flat
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 03.11.2026

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Registrar’s NOC for Commercial Use of Residential Society Flat

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her mob no- +91 8726929060 and email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has held that a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot issue, or compel a housing society to issue, a no-objection certificate (NOC) for converting a residential flat to commercial use when no such statutory duty exists.

The dispute

Surya Lok Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a Mumbai housing society whose sanctioned building plan contained only residential flats, challenged an administrative NOC that supported commercial use of Flat No. 3 on the ground floor.

The flat had changed hands several times before being transferred in January 2016 to Fazal Abbas Sayed and Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed. The purchasers sought membership in the society and were ultimately admitted after an undertaking that the flat would be used for residential purposes. They later pursued permission to use it commercially.

Because the society declined to issue an NOC, the purchasers approached the Deputy Registrar. On 8 December 2016, the Deputy Registrar issued a letter stating that the office had no objection to commercial use of the flat. The society’s challenge to that letter was rejected in revision by the Divisional Joint Registrar in January 2018, leading to the writ petition before the High Court.

What the society argued

The society contended that the Deputy Registrar had no power under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to approve a change in the use of a flat from residential to commercial. It also argued that:
- Flat No. 3 was sanctioned for residential use under the municipal plan.
- The purchasers had expressly undertaken to use the premises only for residential purposes.
- The society had withdrawn an earlier 2000 resolution allowing commercial use of ground-floor flats through later resolutions in 2007 and 2014.
- The NOC was issued without notice to, or a hearing for, the society.
What the flat owners argued

The flat owners submitted that ground-floor premises in the area were commonly used commercially and that Flat No. 3 had allegedly been used for commercial activity in the past. They relied on municipal assessment records, electricity bills, stamp-duty valuation and transfer-deed recitals to support that position.

They also argued that the membership order issued in 2016 had already addressed the commercial-use issue, and that the society was improperly withholding its consent.

The Court’s ruling on the Registrar’s powers

Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to issue the NOC.

At the time of the 2016 NOC, Section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applied. That provision permits the Registrar to enforce action that a society is legally required to take under the Act, rules or bye-laws. The Court found that it does not create a duty requiring a society to issue an NOC for conversion from residential to commercial use.

The Court also examined Section 154B-27, introduced later for co-operative housing societies. It concluded that this provision similarly does not give the Registrar broad authority to resolve every dispute between a member and a society or to compel support for planning-related changes. Its scope is limited to enforcing obligations already created by co-operative law, rules or bye-laws.

The judgment emphasized a key distinction: even if a Registrar could direct a society to perform a legally mandated act, that would not empower the Registrar to issue the society’s NOC personally.

Why the NOC was invalid

The Court identified several defects in the Deputy Registrar’s action:
- No statutory authority: The Act, rules and bye-laws did not obligate the society to issue an NOC for change of user.
- Registrar acted beyond supervisory power: The Deputy Registrar directly stated that the office had no objection to commercial use, effectively substituting the Registrar’s view for the society’s decision.
- No hearing for the society: The NOC was issued after the purchasers’ request without giving the society notice or an opportunity to be heard.
- Lack of application of mind: The Court noted that the Registrar did not verify whether the building contained commercial premises or whether the society supported the proposed conversion.
The Court described the NOC as arbitrary, without jurisdiction and void from the outset.

Membership did not authorize commercial use

The Court rejected the argument that the 2016 membership order had conclusively allowed commercial use. That order dealt with admission to membership, not permission to alter the use of the premises.

The Court found that membership and use of a flat are distinct issues. Observations in the membership order about commercial activity in other flats or municipal assessments did not amount to legal permission for commercial use of Flat No. 3.

The owners’ residential-use undertaking was also material. The Court recorded that membership was granted after an undertaking that the flat would be used exclusively for residential purposes and that no change of use would occur without the society’s prior written permission.

Municipal records and utility connections are not enough

The judgment clarified that commercial municipal assessment, a commercial electricity connection or payment of stamp duty based on commercial valuation do not automatically convert a residential flat into commercial premises.

The Court held that, in a tenant co-partnership housing society, the society owns the land and building while members hold rights to occupy allotted premises. Therefore, a change in use from residential to commercial requires the society’s NOC where the building consists exclusively of residential premises.

Final order and legal remedy

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside:
1. The Deputy Registrar’s letter/NOC dated 8 December 2016; and
2. The Divisional Joint Registrar’s revisional order dated 15 January 2018.
The flat owners remain free to pursue a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before the appropriate Co-operative Court to seek the society’s NOC. Any such dispute must be decided independently on its merits, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations in this case.

Key takeaway for housing societies and members

A Deputy Registrar cannot be used as a substitute decision-maker for a housing society on a proposed change from residential to commercial use. Where a member disputes a society’s refusal to grant an NOC, the proper course is adjudication before the legally competent forum, rather than an administrative NOC issued by the Registrar.

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: Bombay 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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 3, 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds Compassionate Appointments After Years of Service
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 02.11.2026

Bombay High Court Upholds Compassionate Appointments After Years of Service

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her mob no- +91 8726929060 and email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has set aside attempts to cancel the compassionate appointments of two Maharashtra government employees after finding that the State had wrongly treated their deceased fathers’ posts as Group B solely because of the pay scale attached to them.

Background of the dispute

The case combined petitions filed by Avinash Kondiram Wagh and Abhay Chandrakant Khond against the State of Maharashtra and officials in the Vocational Education and Training Department.

Both petitioners had received government employment on compassionate grounds after their fathers died while in service:
- Avinash Wagh was appointed as a Group Instructor in 2004 after his father, a junior clerk, died in service.
- Abhay Khond was appointed as a Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in 2008 after his father, a Training Officer, died in service.
They completed probation, were confirmed in service, and continued working for years. In 2010, however, departmental authorities issued show-cause notices proposing to cancel their appointments. The authorities argued that the posts held by the deceased employees carried the pay scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500 and therefore fell within Group B, whose dependants were allegedly not eligible for compassionate appointment under the policy then relied upon by the State.

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ challenges in 2014. The High Court had meanwhile protected their employment during the litigation.

Court’s key finding: Pay scale alone does not determine classification

The central issue was whether the State could classify the relevant posts as Group B merely because of their pay scale.

The Division Bench held that it could not. It found that the authorities had selectively relied on the Government Resolution of 2 July 2002 and an internal departmental letter dated 19 May 2010, without considering later government resolutions that specifically classified the posts in question.

For Wagh’s case, the Court noted that multiple government resolutions treated the post of Group Instructor, carrying the disputed pay scale, as a Group C (Technical) post. These included resolutions dated:
- 22 October 2008;
- 31 March 2010;
- 14 May 2010; and
- 31 August 2010.
The State did not establish that any of these resolutions had been withdrawn, superseded, or invalidated. The Court also observed that the departmental letter did not reconcile its position with these specific classifications.

In Khond’s case, the respondents had admitted that his father was employed in a Class III post. The Court found no valid basis for subsequently treating that post as Group B. Khond himself had been appointed to a Group C post as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist.

Long service and absence of wrongdoing mattered

The High Court also relied on fairness and equity. Both petitioners had been appointed by competent authorities, completed probation, and served continuously for nearly two decades. Neither was accused of fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or misconduct.

The Court held that it would be seriously prejudicial and disproportionate to unsettle their employment after such a long period, particularly because they had crossed the usual age limits for entering government service.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that the State should not take advantage of its own alleged mistake after a long delay when the employee had not secured appointment through deception or concealment.

Compassionate appointment is a beneficial measure

The judgment restated that compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment rules. Its purpose is to provide immediate financial support to a family facing hardship after the death of its earning member.

The Court held that cancelling confirmed appointments decades later would undermine that objective. Once the petitioners had become confirmed employees, their service could not be taken away except in accordance with law and applicable service rules.

The Court also noted that Maharashtra expanded its compassionate-appointment policy in September 2021 to cover dependants of employees in Groups A and B as well as Groups C and D. While this later policy did not retrospectively decide the petitioners’ entitlement, it showed that the earlier restriction had since been broadened.

Outcome

The High Court allowed both writ petitions and set aside the Tribunal’s 2014 order insofar as it had dismissed the petitioners’ original applications. The proposed cancellation of their compassionate appointments was held unsustainable.

The ruling is expressly confined to the particular facts of these cases and is not to be treated as a precedent for other matters. Its core message is nevertheless clear: government authorities must consider all applicable classification rules and cannot undo long-standing compassionate appointments on a narrow or inconsistent reading of policy, especially where the employees acted in good faith and have served for many years.

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: Bombay 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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 2, 2026
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 “manufactured/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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 2, 2026