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 Mumbai Quashes Suspension of Customs Broker Licence

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Suspension of Customs Broker Licence

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Suspension of Customs Broker Licence

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has quashed the suspension of the customs broker licence of Eicon Impex LLP. The suspension, which was effected by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur, was declared non-compliant with regulatory mandates and set aside in Final Order No. A/85375/2023 dated 28th February 2023.

    Background of the Case

    The case arose from the suspension of the customs broker licence of Eicon Impex LLP following allegations of mis-declaration in one Bill of Entry filed on behalf of M/s White Feather Trading Company. The consignment was examined in September 2022, but the suspension order was passed much laterβ€”on 28th December 2022β€”and continued vide a subsequent order dated 25th January 2023 after a post-decisional hearing.

    Eicon Impex LLP challenged the continuation of the suspension under Regulation 16 of the CBLR, 2018, arguing that the action lacked immediacy and was procedurally unjust.

    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 Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad Dismisses Allegations of SEZ Export Fraud and Duty Evasion

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Dismisses Allegations of SEZ Export Fraud and Duty Evasion

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.06.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Dismisses Allegations of SEZ Export Fraud and Duty Evasion

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, vide Final Order Nos. A/10315-10316/2023 dated 23.02.2023, has quashed the customs duty demand and associated penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. The Tribunal found that the allegations of clandestine removal of goods from the Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ) were unsupported by concrete evidence.

    Background of the Case

    The case pertained to the alleged misdeclaration of goods declared as β€œFancy Scarves” and β€œFancy Dupattas” exported by M/s Siddhnath Shipping, operating as a KASEZ trading unit. The goods were sourced from M/s Cosmic Textiles Pvt. Ltd., a 100% EOU based in Surat.

    The customs department alleged that:

    • Siddhnath Shipping declared a net weight of 19,002 Kgs in the shipping bill, while actual weight found was only 1,450 Kgs.
    • The goods exported were of inferior quality, contrary to what was received from the EOU.
    • There was a clandestine diversion of the actual consignment into the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), violating SEZ/EOU rules and customs law.

    Based on these findings, the department issued a Show Cause Notice demanding β‚Ή57.24 lakhs in customs duty, confiscated the goods, and levied penalties under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

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

    Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi- Upholds Exemption for HIV Viral Load Kits and Quashes Inflated Customs Valuation

    CESTAT Delhi- Upholds Exemption for HIV Viral Load Kits and Quashes Inflated Customs Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Upholds Exemption for HIV Viral Load Kits and Quashes Inflated Customs Valuation

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi has granted relief to M/s Cepheid India Pvt. Ltd. by allowing exemption from customs duties for their imported HIV-1 Viral Load Test Kits and setting aside the re-determined assessable value imposed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The decision was delivered on June 25, 2025, by Principal Bench.

    Background:

    Cepheid India, a subsidiary of the California-based Cepheid Group, imported molecular diagnostic equipment and test kits including the HIV-1 Viral Load (VL) kits under various Bills of Entry between August 2016 and April 2021. The customs department denied exemption benefits and alleged undervaluation based on related party imports, leading to reassessment under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

    The Principal Commissioner’s order rejected exemption claims under multiple notifications including:

    • Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. (Sr. No. 148)
    • Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. (Sr. No. 167)
    • IGST Rate Notification No. 1/2017-IT (Rate), Sr. No. 180

    Additionally, a penalty under Section 114A and interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was imposed.

    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 Delhi Sets Aside Customs Valuation Over Silk Fabric Imports

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Valuation Over Silk Fabric Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Valuation Over Silk Fabric Imports

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, allowed the appeal of M/s. Elegant International by setting aside a customs demand raised by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner had earlier rejected the declared transaction value of imported Chinese silk fabrics under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, alleging under-invoicing. However, the Tribunal found the basis of the valuation untenable due to lack of direct evidence against the appellant.

    Case Background

    M/s. Elegant International had imported silk fabrics from Zhejiang Cathaya International, China, between 2003 and 2005 via 37 Bills of Entry. The Commissioner, Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi, passed an order dated 6 February 2009 alleging that the declared transaction values were suppressed. The valuation was rejected under Rule 10A, and the value was reassessed under Rule 5 of the 1988 Valuation Rules. A differential customs duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, followed.

    The entire case against the appellant rested on evidence recovered during DRI investigations against other importers (M/s. Purnima Enterprises, M/s. Om Fabrics, and M/s. Vedant Enterprises), where duplicate invoices were allegedly used to understate import 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 Delhi

    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 Mumbai- Aluminium Profiles as Machinery Parts, Not Structures

    CESTAT Mumbai- Aluminium Profiles as Machinery Parts, Not Structures

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai- Aluminium Profiles as Machinery Parts, Not Structures

    Background

    M/s Classic Stripes Pvt. Ltd., a leading manufacturer of screen-printed self-adhesive PVC stickers, imported printing frame profiles from Germany for use in screen-printing machines. These profiles were custom-fabricated for integration into existing machinery at their factory.

    • The company classified the imported goods under CTI 8443 9990 (parts of printing machinery).
    • Customs authorities reclassified the goods under CTI 7610 9090 (other aluminium structures) and levied duties and penalties.
    • The department also imposed a redemption fine of β‚Ή2,50,000 and penalty of β‚Ή50,000, while confirming differential duty of β‚Ή78,175.

    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 Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad Allows Exemption on Flexi Tanks

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Allows Exemption on Flexi Tanks

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.06.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Allows Exemption on Flexi Tanks

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench has allowed the appeals filed by Goodrich Maritime Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, Venkatraman Thyagarajan, against the denial of exemption under Notification No. 104/94-Cus dated 16.03.1994 on imported Flexi Tank Containers.

    The core issue revolved around whether Flexi Tank Containers, which are typically used once for transporting liquid cargo and then exported, qualify as “durable containers” to claim customs duty exemption.

    Background of the Case

    • The Department denied exemption benefits to Goodrich Maritime, asserting that Flexi Tank Containers are not durable since they are used only once and not repeatedly.
    • Additional objections were raised regarding:
      • Whether the importer themselves must re-export the containers.
      • Whether drawback claims by exporters using the containers affect eligibility.

    The Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, rejected the exemption and imposed a penalty on the Managing Director under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

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

    Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai Clarifies Finished Leather Export Criteria

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifies Finished Leather Export Criteria

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifies Finished Leather Export Criteria

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, allowed the appeal of M/s Nabisha Leathers and set aside the imposition of export duty, penalty, and fine imposed for alleged export of β€œunfinished leather.” The case revolved around a nuanced interpretation of DGFT’s Public Notice on finished leather norms and marks a vital precedent on how such technical regulations should be interpreted.

    Background of the Case

    • Nabisha Leathers filed a shipping bill in March 2010 to export 37 cartons of β€œGoat Shoe Suede Upper Leather.”
    • A leather expert from Customs flagged 13 cartons of grey-coloured leather, suspecting non-compliance with DGFT Public Notice No. 21/2009-14.
    • A sample was sent to the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), which reported non-compliance citing “absence of snuffing” on the grain as the reason.
    • Based on the CLRI report, Customs:
      • Confiscated the consignment under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
      • Levied 60% export duty on the consignment.
      • Imposed a penalty of β‚Ή10,000.
      • Allowed redemption on fine of β‚Ή50,000.

    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 Delhi Upholds 12% IGST on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile Phone Manufacturing

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds 12% IGST on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile Phone Manufacturing

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds 12% IGST on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile Phone Manufacturing

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Principal Bench, delivered a comprehensive judgment on 23rd June 2025 in Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, resolving a long-standing dispute over the correct IGST rate applicable on lithium-ion batteries imported for use in the manufacture of mobile phones.

    Key Issue

    The central issue before the Tribunal was whether lithium-ion batteries imported by Samsung India and other mobile manufacturers for use in the manufacture of mobile phones are to be taxed at:

    • 12% IGST under Serial No. 203 of Schedule II (as claimed by Samsung India),
      or
    • 28% or 18% IGST under Serial No. 139 of Schedule IV and 376AA of Schedule III, respectively (as claimed by the Department).

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

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Bangalore- Personal Penalty on Co-noticees Cannot Be Recovered from Refund Sanctioned to Appellant

    CESTAT Bangalore- Personal Penalty on Co-noticees Cannot Be Recovered from Refund Sanctioned to Appellant

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.06.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- Personal Penalty on Co-noticees Cannot Be Recovered from Refund Sanctioned to Appellant

    Background: Currency Seizure and Penalties

    Appellant, while traveling from Bangalore airport, was found carrying undeclared foreign currency worth β‚Ή29.37 lakhs. The currencies included:

    • US$ 100 notes (300 Nos.),
    • Euro 100 (24 Nos.), Euro 50 (163 Nos.),
    • Saudi Riyals 500 (22 Nos.).

    On investigation, it was alleged that these currencies were handed over to him by two individuals – and were being smuggled in violation of the Customs Act, 1962, and FEMA, 1999.

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

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai: Undervaluation Allegations Dismissed Over Invalid Electronic Evidence

    CESTAT Mumbai: Undervaluation Allegations Dismissed Over Invalid Electronic Evidence

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai: Undervaluation Allegations Dismissed Over Invalid Electronic Evidence

    Background of the Case

    M/s Winsor Enterprises, a Mumbai-based importer of bags and PVC leather cloth, along with its partners, were subjected to an intense investigation by the DRI Surat Unit. The DRI alleged that the appellants had undervalued imported goods from China with the intent to evade customs duty. Based on electronic communications and printouts seized during a search operation in 2017, the Customs Department issued a Show Cause Notice proposing:

    • Reassessment of customs duty under Section 28(4),
    • Confiscation of goods under Section 111,
    • Penalties under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA.

    The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and imposed total penalties exceeding β‚Ή9 crore.

    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