ALS

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

Tag: #CESTAT

  • CESTAT Chennai Upholds Scientific Classification of Levocarnitine Imports

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Scientific Classification of Levocarnitine Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Scientific Classification of Levocarnitine 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 landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has ruled in favor of M/s. ​ Symbio Generics India Private Ltd., upholding the classification of their imported products, “Levocarnitine” and “Levocarnitine L-Tartrate,” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 29239000 as “Quaternary Ammonium Salts.” ​ This decision, pronounced on September 19, 2025, sets a significant precedent in the realm of customs classification disputes.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when the Revenue challenged the classification declared by the importer, M/s. ​ Symbio Generics India Private Ltd., and sought to reclassify the products under CTH 21069099 as “food preparations not elsewhere specified or included.” ​ The Revenue’s contention was based on the assumption that the imported goods were food supplements, despite expert opinions and scientific evidence supporting the original classification. ​

    The products in question, “Levocarnitine” and “Levocarnitine L-Tartrate,” are pharmaceutical-grade compounds used as drug intermediates. ​ They are scientifically defined as “Quaternary Ammonium Salts” and have therapeutic value. ​ The Appellant argued that these products are separate chemically defined organic compounds, as per Note 1(a) of Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court – Laptops are not to be classified as a set of CPU with monitor, mouse, and keyboard

    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 Quashes Penalty on Broker in Diamond Trade

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Penalty on Broker in Diamond Trade

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Penalty on Broker in Diamond Trade​ ​ ​  

    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 Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the penalty imposed on Appellant, a broker in the diamond trade, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around allegations of over-invoicing and circular trading of diamonds by certain firms, with the appellant accused of being a link between the parties involved. ​ This blog delves into the details of the case, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal’s reasoning behind its decision.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant worked as a broker in the diamond trade, earning a small commission of 2 paisa per US dollar. He was accused of being involved in circular trading and over-invoicing of diamonds imported by M/s Chirayu Impex Pvt. ​ Ltd and M/s Amrapali Exim Pvt. ​ Ltd. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation against these firms, alleging that they were importing diamonds without paying customs duty and overvaluing the goods to remit excess foreign exchange overseas. ​

    The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice, and the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. ​ 2,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. ​ 1,50,000. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Reinforces Evidentiary Standards in FERA

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi- the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked

    CESTAT Delhi- the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked ​ ​

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

    ​​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently delivered its judgment on a series of appeals involving Toyota Material Handling India Private Limited (TMHIPL), its Senior Manager, and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi. The case revolved around the assessment of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on imported forklift parts and the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Here’s a breakdown of the case and its implications.

    The Background

    Toyota Material Handling India, a subsidiary of Toyota Industrial Corporation, Japan, imports and distributes forklifts and their parts in India. ​ Between February 2014 and March 2017, the company imported forklift parts and paid CVD based on the transaction value of the goods. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that CVD should have been assessed on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) basis, as per the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and related rules. ​

    A show cause notice was issued in January 2019, alleging that Toyota India had evaded duty by not declaring the MRP of the imported goods. ​ The Principal Commissioner of Customs confirmed a demand of β‚Ή1.67 crore for the period up to May 13, 2015, but dropped a demand of β‚Ή3.25 crore for the period after May 14, 2015, citing amendments to the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Clarifies Requirement of Wilful Intent for Extended Limitation

    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 holds that the demand for anti-dumping duty and penalties was unsustainable

    CESTAT Chennai holds that the demand for anti-dumping duty and penalties was unsustainable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai holds that the demand for anti-dumping duty and penalties was unsustainable ​ ​

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has delivered a favorable judgment for M/s. Olympic Enterprises and its proprietor’s son, in a long-standing dispute over anti-dumping duty on imported measuring tapes. ​ The appeals, which were inter-related, were heard together and disposed of by a common order on September 17, 2025. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the import of “fibre glass measuring tapes” by M/s. ​ Olympic Enterprises, which were declared as “tailor tapes” in the bills of entry. The Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the importer deliberately misdeclared the goods to evade anti-dumping duty applicable to such imports from China under Notification No. ​ 49/2009–Cus. dated May 15, 2009. ​ The department also accused the importer of suppressing facts and violating provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. ​

    Following investigations, the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods, imposed anti-dumping duty of Rs. ​ 47,36,512/-, and levied penalties on both the importer and Appellant, ​ The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the adjudicating authority’s order, prompting the appellants to approach the Tribunal.

    Source: CESTAT Chennai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Emphasized that 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) are exempt from safeguard duty

    CESTAT Delhi Emphasized that 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) are exempt from safeguard duty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Emphasized that 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) are exempt from safeguard duty​ ​

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

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has ruled in favor of M/s Alpex Solar Pvt. Ltd., a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU), exempting them from the imposition of safeguard duty under Section 8B(2A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ This judgment, delivered on September 16, 2025, sets a significant precedent for EOUs across India.

    Background of the Case

    Alpex Solar Pvt. ​ Ltd., engaged in the manufacturing and export of solar panels, imported Multi Silicon Solar Cells from Taiwan in 2018. ​ The company filed Bills of Entry at a nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and paid IGST at 5%, availing exemptions under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. However, in March 2019, the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch observed that the company had not paid safeguard duty at 25%, imposed under Notification No. ​ 1/2018-(SG). ​ A show-cause notice was issued, alleging that the goods imported were of Taiwanese origin, which did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. ​ 19/2016-Cus (NT). ​

    The Principal Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand for safeguard duty, IGST interest, and penalties, leading Alpex Solar Pvt. ​ Ltd. to challenge the order before CESTAT.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Bangalore- Technical assistance fees not to be included in the value of imported goods

    CESTAT Bangalore- Technical assistance fees not to be included in the value of imported goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- Technical assistance fees not to be included in the value of imported goods​ ​

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

    In a significant ruling by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, the inclusion of technical assistance fees in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR) was thoroughly examined. ​ The case, involving M/s. ​ Seiren India Pvt. ​ Ltd., sheds light on the nuanced interpretation of customs valuation laws and the distinction between pre-import and post-import activities. This decision is a landmark in clarifying the scope of Rule 10(1)(c) and its application to technical assistance fees.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Seiren India Pvt. ​ Ltd., a subsidiary of Japanese companies, entered into an “Assistance and Service Agreement” with its overseas parent entities for technical, marketing, and other assistance required for setting up a manufacturing facility in Mysore. ​ The company imported raw materials, consumables, and capital goods, including tools and spares, from related and unrelated suppliers. The dispute arose when the adjudicating authority added the technical assistance fees paid by the appellant to the value of imported goods, citing Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR, 2007. ​ This decision was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to approach CESTAT.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Refines the Doctrine of Royalty Inclusion in Import Valuation

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation ​ ​

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

    ​​

    In a significant decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has set aside penalties imposed on two appellants, in a case involving allegations of under-valuation and mis-declaration of imported goods by M/s Prince International. ​ The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), highlights the importance of evidence-based findings and the proper application of legal provisions in customs cases.

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) into M/s Prince International, Ludhiana, which was accused of evading customs duty by under-valuing and mis-declaring bicycle parts and pumps imported from China. ​ Following the investigation, penalties were imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly aiding and abetting the importer in the evasion of customs duty.

    Source: CESTAT Chandigarh

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export​ ​ ​  

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside penalties imposed on three appellants accused of illegally exporting onions to Nepal under the guise of potatoes. ​ The case, which revolved around alleged violations of a government ban on onion exports, highlights the importance of admissible evidence and procedural safeguards in adjudication processes. ​ This blog delves into the details of the case and the Tribunal’s reasoning behind its decision.

    Background of the Case

    The controversy began with the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 29, 2020, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). ​ The SCN alleged that M/s Sai Ram Enterprises, its proprietor Appellants (a Superintendent at the Land Customs Station, Toothibari) were involved in exporting onions to Nepal despite a ban imposed by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) through Notification No. 21/2019-20 dated September 29, 2019. The onions were allegedly exported under the guise of potatoes using falsified shipping bills. ​ The Joint Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the SCN and imposed penalties of Rs. ​ 5,00,000 each on the appellants under Sections 114AA and 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ These penalties were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellants to approach the Tribunal.

    Connected Matter

    Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance with Section 9D

    Source: CESTAT Allahabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi- Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemptions when export obligations are certified as fulfilled by the DGFT

    CESTAT Delhi- Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemptions when export obligations are certified as fulfilled by the DGFT

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemptions when export obligations are certified as fulfilled by the DGFT ​ ​

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

    ​​

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Svam Toyal Packaging Industries Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. ​ This case, which revolved around the classification of imported goods under the Advance Authorization Scheme, has far-reaching implications for importers and exporters operating under similar schemes. ​

    Background of the Case ​

    Svam Toyal Packaging Industries Pvt. ​ Ltd., a manufacturer and exporter of aluminum foils used in pharmaceutical packaging, had obtained eight Advance Authorizations (AAs) from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). ​ These authorizations allowed duty-free import of raw materials, including aluminum foil (50 MIC Β± 10%), under the condition that the company fulfilled its export obligations. ​

    The dispute arose when the Customs Department alleged that the imported goods were misclassified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7607 19 91 instead of CTH 7607 11 90. ​ The department argued that this misclassification rendered the imports ineligible for duty exemption under Notification No. ​ 18/2015-Cus. Consequently, a demand for differential customs duty of β‚Ή21.43 crore, along with interest and a penalty of β‚Ή50 lakh, was raised.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of β‚Ή15 Lakh Cash

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of β‚Ή15 Lakh Cash

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of β‚Ή15 Lakh Cash​ ​

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

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has ruled in favor of the appellant, Appellant in a case involving the confiscation of Indian currency worth Rs. 15,00,000 and the imposition of a penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), on September 15, 2025, sets a significant precedent in cases involving alleged illegal currency transportation.

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an incident on November 20, 2019, when Indian currency amounting to Rs. ​ 15,00,000 was seized from Appellant near Rabindranagar, Tripura, by a joint team of Customs Preventive Force and BSF personnel. The authorities alleged that the currency was intended for illegal export to Bangladesh through the unfenced border area. ​ Subsequently, Appellant claimed ownership of the seized currency, explaining its legitimate source.

    A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant, citing contradictory statements about the location and circumstances of the seizure. ​ While one part of the notice stated that the currency was recovered near the unfenced border area at 17:45 hours, another part mentioned that a person was apprehended moving suspiciously toward the border at 18:40 hours. ​ These inconsistencies formed the crux of the appellant’s defense.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com