𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #CESTAT

Calcutta High Court Directs Revenue to Approach Supreme Court Under Section 130E of Customs Act
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 01.04.2026

Calcutta High Court Directs Revenue to Approach Supreme Court Under Section 130E of Customs Act

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

On March 19, 2026, the High Court at Calcutta, under its Special Jurisdiction (Customs), delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port) vs. M/s Akash Exports, Through Its Proprietor. The case, registered as CUSTA/26/2026 and IA NO: GA/1/2026, was heard by a division bench comprising Hon’ble Justice.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port) against M/s Akash Exports, alleging substantial errors in law committed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appellant raised several critical questions of law under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, which governs appeals to the High Court. The case revolved around issues of provisional release, smuggling allegations, valuation of imported goods, and penalties under the Customs Act.

Substantial Questions of Law Raised 

The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate, presented the following key questions of law for the Court’s consideration:
1. Misinterpretation of Provisional Release: Whether the Tribunal erred in interpreting provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, as provisional assessment under Section 18.
2. Disregard of Evidence: Whether the Tribunal committed a substantial error in law by disregarding overwhelming evidence of smuggling and fraud, treating the case as a mere procedural issue.
3. Valuation of Goods: Whether the Tribunal incorrectly rejected the re-determined value of goods by the department and accepted the declared/revised values, violating Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
4. Penalty Under Section 114AA: Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the penalty under Section 114AA by treating it as consequential to the duty demand without appreciating the true scope of the section.
5. Perversity of the Tribunal’s Order: Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was perverse in both facts and law.
Legal Framework

The Court examined the provisions of Sections 130 and 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, which outline the procedures for appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court, respectively. Section 130 allows appeals to the High Court if the case involves substantial questions of law, while Section 130E provides for appeals to the Supreme Court in cases involving the determination of the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes.

Court’s Observations

After reviewing the case and the legal provisions, the Court concluded that the appeal should be preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act. The bench noted that the case involved substantial questions of law and related to the determination of the value of goods for assessment purposes, which falls under the purview of the Supreme Court.

Judgment

The High Court dismissed the appeals and connected applications filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port). The Court also granted leave to the appellant’s advocate to obtain a certified copy of the tribunal’s order and replace it with a photocopy.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment underscores the importance of correctly interpreting the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 130 and 130E, in determining the appropriate forum for appeals. By directing the matter to the Supreme Court, the High Court has reinforced the principle that cases involving substantial questions of law related to the valuation of goods for assessment purposes must be adjudicated at the highest judicial level.

Conclusion

The case of Commissioner of Customs (Port) vs. M/s Akash Exports highlights the complexities of customs law and the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases involving allegations of smuggling, fraud, and valuation disputes. The High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeals and direct the matter to the Supreme Court sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring that substantial questions of law are addressed by the appropriate judicial authority.

Source: Calcutta High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 1, 2026
CESTAT Bangalore- Export benefits cannot be denied due to procedural non-compliances when export obligations are met
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 31.03.2026

CESTAT Bangalore- Export benefits cannot be denied due to procedural non-compliances when export obligations are met

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Midas Treads (India) Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin and related appeals. The case revolved around allegations of forged ISO certificates and manipulated test reports submitted by the appellant to avail benefits under the Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) and Advance Authorization (AA) schemes. The tribunal’s decision, pronounced on March 30, 2026, has set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Midas Treads (India) Pvt Ltd, is a manufacturer and exporter of pre-cured tread rubber, rubber compound sheets, and other products. The case arose from allegations that the appellant had used forged ISO certificates and manipulated test reports to avail benefits under the DFIA and AA schemes during the periods 2007–2009 and 2012–2015. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted investigations and issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on March 15, 2018, alleging that the appellant had violated the conditions of the exemption notifications and manipulated test reports to meet the Standard Input Output Norms (SION).

The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, passed an Order-in-Original on July 24, 2019, confirming the demand for customs duty and imposing penalties on the appellant and co-noticees. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed appeals before the CESTAT.

Key Issues in the Case

The primary issues in the appeals were:
1. Whether the appellant had submitted forged ISO certificates to avail benefits under the DFIA and AA schemes.
2. Whether the test reports submitted by the appellant were manipulated to meet SION requirements.
3. Whether the appellant had violated the conditions of the exemption notifications.
4. Whether the penalties imposed on the appellant and co-noticees were justified.
Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments 
1. Compliance with Export Obligations: The appellant argued that they had fulfilled all export obligations under the DFIA and AA schemes, as evidenced by the Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). These EODCs were not challenged or reviewed by the authorities.
2. Validity of Test Reports: The appellant contended that samples of exported goods were drawn by the Customs authorities, and the test reports confirmed compliance with SION norms. They argued that the alleged procedural violation regarding ISO certification should not lead to denial of substantial export benefits.
3. ISO Certification: The appellant clarified that the ISO certificate was issued in 2009, not 2006, and submitted a letter dated July 30, 2013, to the Customs authorities to rectify the discrepancy. They emphasized that ISO certification was not a mandatory condition for availing benefits under the DFIA and AA schemes.
4. Legal Precedents: The appellant cited various judgments, including M/s IOCEE Exports Ltd vs. CC, Chennai and M/s Titan Medical Systems Pvt Ltd vs. CC, New Delhi, to argue that procedural violations should not result in denial of substantial benefits.
Respondent’s Arguments 
1. Forgery Allegations: The respondent argued that the appellant had submitted forged ISO certificates and manipulated test reports, which were confirmed by statements from employees and the issuing agency.
2. Non-Compliance with Notifications: The respondent contended that the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of exemption notifications, including the requirement for valid test reports and ISO certification.
3. Fraud and Suppression: The respondent alleged that the appellant had committed fraud and suppressed facts, justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalties.
4. Penalties on Co-Noticees: The respondent argued that the co-noticees were complicit in the alleged fraud and should also be penalized.
Tribunal’s Findings 

After hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, the tribunal made the following observations:
1. ISO Certification: The tribunal noted that ISO certification was not a mandatory condition for availing benefits under the DFIA and AA schemes. The procedural violation regarding the ISO certificate did not justify denial of substantial export benefits.
2. Test Reports: The tribunal found that samples were drawn by the Customs authorities, and the test reports confirmed compliance with SION norms. There was no evidence to suggest that the exported goods were not in accordance with the prescribed norms.
3. Export Obligations: The tribunal observed that the appellant had fulfilled all export obligations, as evidenced by the EODCs issued by the DGFT. There were no allegations of diversion of raw materials or non-compliance with import conditions.
4. Penalties and Confiscation: The tribunal held that the penalties imposed on the appellant and co-noticees were unsustainable, as there was no evidence of personal involvement or unjust gain. The tribunal also set aside the confiscation of goods.
Final Decision

The tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief in accordance with the law. The decision emphasized that substantial export benefits cannot be denied due to procedural non-compliances, especially when there is no evidence of fraud or diversion of goods.

Key Takeaways
1. Procedural Violations vs. Substantial Rights: The judgment underscores that procedural violations should not lead to denial of substantial export benefits, provided the exporter fulfills all export obligations.
2. Role of ISO Certification: ISO certification is not mandatory for availing benefits under DFIA and AA schemes. It is only required for procedural relaxation in sampling and testing.
3. Importance of Legal Precedents: The tribunal relied on several landmark judgments to arrive at its decision, highlighting the importance of established legal principles in customs cases.
4. Fairness in Adjudication: The tribunal emphasized the need for fairness and reasonableness in adjudication, especially when there is no evidence of fraud or diversion.
Conclusion

The CESTAT Bangalore’s decision in the case of Midas Treads (India) Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin is a landmark judgment that reinforces the principle of fairness in customs adjudication. It provides clarity on the role of procedural compliance in availing export benefits and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. This judgment is a significant step toward ensuring that exporters are not unfairly penalized for minor procedural lapses, provided they fulfill their substantial obligations under the law.

Connected Matters

Karnataka HC Ruled on Customs Dispute Over EPCG Scheme Compliance

Madras High Court Sets Aside Customs Penalty: Standard Input-Output Norms Alone Insufficient for Show Cause Notice in Absence of Diversion

Source: CESTAT Bangalore

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
March 31, 2026
Gujarat High Court Ruled Against Parallel Proceedings in Customs Duty Dispute

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 30.03.2026

Gujarat High Court Ruled Against Parallel Proceedings in Customs Duty Dispute

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

In a significant judgment, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, presided over by Honourable Justices delivered a ruling in favor of Messrs Om Siddh Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd. & 1, quashing a show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. The case, Special Civil Application No. 20016 of 2016, revolved around the legality of parallel proceedings initiated by customs authorities concerning the same subject matter.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from the import of 2563.2 kilograms of synthetic fabric/stock lots from China by the petitioner company under Bill of Entry No. 2376 dated 25.09.2003. The company claimed a concessional rate of customs duty under a Letter of Permission (LOP) issued by the Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, allowing them to operate as a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit.

The customs authorities initially conducted a provisional assessment of the goods, pending reports from the Textile Committee, Mumbai. Subsequently, the petitioner paid the assessed duty and cleared the goods to their unit. However, a small quantity of the imported materials was sold in the local market, triggering scrutiny from the customs department.

In March 2007, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment, enhancing the assessable value of the goods and determining a customs duty of Rs. 71,57,744. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 06.09.2007, proposing confiscation of the goods, recovery of customs duties, and imposition of penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962.

Legal Proceedings

The petitioners challenged the final assessment order dated 09.03.2007 before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who set aside the order on the grounds of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for re-assessment. Subsequently, a second show cause notice dated 18.12.2008 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, proposing changes in the classification and valuation of the goods, along with a demand for differential customs duty and interest.

The second show cause notice culminated in an adjudication order dated 12.11.2015, which confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 71,57,744 and denied the claim for a concessional rate of customs duty. The petitioners appealed this order, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order in May 2016. The customs department then filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which is currently pending.

Despite the ongoing appeal, the customs authorities issued a notice of hearing in connection with the earlier show cause notice dated 06.09.2007. The petitioners argued that pursuing two parallel proceedings for the same subject matter was illegal and constituted an abuse of the process of law. They approached the High Court to quash the earlier show cause notice.

Key Legal Issues

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the customs authorities could initiate and pursue two parallel proceedings for the same subject matter. The petitioners contended that the proposals in both show cause notices were largely identical, and the matter had already been adjudicated upon in the proceedings arising from the second show cause notice.

The respondents argued that the scope of the two show cause notices was distinct, with the first notice focusing on the clearance of goods into the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) without payment of customs duty and the second notice addressing classification and valuation issues.

Court’s Observations 

The High Court conducted a detailed analysis of the two show cause notices and the subsequent proceedings. It noted that both notices arose from the same subject matter—the import of goods under Bill of Entry No. 2376 dated 25.09.2003—and both sought to levy the same differential customs duty of Rs. 71,57,744 with interest. The court observed that the issue of duty liability based on the alleged diversion of goods to the DTA had already been adjudicated upon in the proceedings arising from the second show cause notice.

The court further noted that the adjudicating authority had widened the scope of the second show cause notice to include issues of diversion, which were already the subject of the first show cause notice. This led to a situation where the same subject matter was being addressed in two separate proceedings, which the court deemed impermissible.

Judgment

The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the show cause notice dated 06.09.2007 to the extent it related to the petitioners. The court held that pursuing two parallel proceedings for the same subject matter was contrary to sound public policy and constituted an abuse of the process of law. It emphasized that the continuance of the earlier show cause notice could not be contingent upon the outcome of the proceedings arising from the subsequent show cause notice.

Legal Principle Established

The judgment established the principle that authorities cannot initiate or pursue parallel proceedings for the same subject matter. Once a matter has been adjudicated upon, it is not permissible to initiate another proceeding on the same issue, as this would lead to duplication and abuse of legal processes.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in this case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and avoiding duplicative legal proceedings. It underscores the need for administrative authorities to act within the bounds of their jurisdiction and refrain from initiating multiple proceedings for the same cause of action. This judgment is a significant precedent in the realm of customs law and reinforces the principle of fairness and efficiency in legal processes.

Source: Gujarat High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

March 30, 2026
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalty on CHA Under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 28.03.2026

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalty on CHA Under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email 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 M/s. H.C. Khanna & Company vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), New Delhi. The judgment, pronounced by Hon’ble Member Judicial, on March 24, 2026, addressed the imposition of penalties under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the Customs House Agent (CHA) for alleged violations during the filing of Bills of Entry for importers.

Background of the Case 

The case involved four appeals filed by M/s. H.C. Khanna & Company, a Customs House Agent (CHA), against penalties imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeals arose from four separate Orders-in-Original issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), New Delhi. The importers involved were M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. and M/s. Jet Lite (India) Ltd., who had imported aircraft parts and allegedly misdeclared the goods to avail lower rates of IGST and Basic Customs Duty (BCD).

The department alleged that the CHA failed to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the information provided by the importers, thereby violating clauses (d) and (e) of Regulation 10 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. Consequently, penalties ranging from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 were imposed on the CHA under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Key Issues in the Case 

The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, was justifiably imposed on the appellant/CHA in the given circumstances. Section 117 of the Customs Act provides for penalties in cases where any person contravenes or fails to comply with provisions of the Act, and no express penalty is provided elsewhere.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments:
1. Limited Role of CHA: The appellant argued that its role was limited to filing Bills of Entry based on the documents and instructions provided by the importers. The responsibility for accurate classification and declaration rested solely with the importers under Sections 17 and 46 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Lack of Technical Expertise: The CHA contended that it lacked the technical competence to question the classification of specialized goods like aircraft parts.
3. No Evidence of Negligence: The appellant argued that there was no evidence to prove that it was aware of any misclassification or that it acted negligently.
4. Invalid Show Cause Notice: The appellant highlighted that the importers were undergoing insolvency proceedings, and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had already approved their resolution plan. As per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., all claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished, making the show cause notice invalid.
Respondent’s Arguments:
1. Due Diligence Requirement: The department argued that under Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018, the CHA is obligated to exercise due diligence to ensure the accuracy of information provided to customs authorities, including classification and duty rates.
2. Professional Vigilance: The CHA was expected to raise red flags and alert authorities in cases of anomalies, especially when inconsistent classifications were used for the same products during the same period.
Tribunal’s Observations and Judgment

After hearing both parties and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal made the following observations:
1. Role of CHA: The Tribunal emphasized that the CHA’s role is limited to processing documents for customs clearance based on information provided by importers. The CHA is not a technical expert and cannot be held responsible for verifying the accuracy of the classification of specialized goods like aircraft parts.
2. Onus on Importers: The Tribunal reiterated that under Section 46(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, the responsibility for providing truthful declarations in the Bills of Entry lies solely with the importers. The CHA cannot be held liable for misdeclarations made by the importers.
3. No Evidence of Violation: The Tribunal found no evidence to support the department’s claim that the CHA had violated clauses (d) and (e) of Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018. Moreover, no proceedings were initiated against the CHA under these regulations.
4. Invalid Show Cause Notice: The Tribunal held that the show cause notices were invalid as the importers’ resolution plan had already been approved by the NCLT, extinguishing all claims not included in the plan.
5. Precedents: The Tribunal relied on several judicial precedents, including Kunal Travels (Cargo) vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), IGI Airport, New Delhi, which clarified that CHAs are not responsible for verifying the genuineness of information provided by importers.
Final Decision

The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, was wrongly imposed on the appellant/CHA. It held that the findings of the adjudicating authority were based on assumptions and lacked evidence. Consequently, the orders under challenge were set aside, and all four appeals were allowed.

Key Takeaways
1. Limited Liability of CHAs: This judgment reinforces the principle that Customs House Agents are not responsible for verifying the technical accuracy of the information provided by importers.
2. Onus on Importers: The responsibility for accurate classification and declaration of goods lies with the importers, as mandated by Sections 17 and 46 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Invalid Show Cause Notices: Claims against entities undergoing insolvency proceedings and with approved resolution plans cannot be pursued, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd.
4. Importance of Evidence: Penalties under Section 117 of the Customs Act require concrete evidence of contravention or failure to comply with the Act. Assumptions and presumptions are insufficient grounds for imposing penalties.
This landmark decision by the CESTAT serves as a crucial precedent for cases involving the role and responsibilities of Customs House Agents, emphasizing the need for clear evidence and adherence to legal provisions before imposing penalties.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
March 28, 2026
CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Scope of Valuation Rule 10(2) and Limits of Extended Limitation
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 27.03.2026

CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Scope of Valuation Rule 10(2) and Limits of Extended Limitation

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Customs Appeal No. 75332 of 2024, involving M/s. Jindal Nickel & Alloys Ltd. and the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata. This case revolved around the inclusion of freight and insurance charges in the assessable value of imported goods and the invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal’s decision has set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Background of the Case

M/s. Jindal Nickel & Alloys Ltd., a trader and importer of goods, imports Ferro Silicon and Magnesium Ferro Silicon from Bhutan through the Land Customs Station (LCS) at Jaigaon, located at the Indo-Bhutan border. The dispute arose when the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata, issued an Order-in-Original (No. 09/Cus/CC(P)/WB/2023-24 dated 31.10.2023), directing the re-assessment of the imported goods. The order mandated the inclusion of freight charges (20% of the Free on Board (FOB) value) and insurance charges (1.125% of the FOB value) in the assessable value, as per Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.

The department alleged that the appellant had misared the assessable value of the goods by excluding freight and insurance charges, resulting in a short payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to ₹83,43,639 during the period July 2017 to June 2018. Consequently, the department imposed a penalty of an equal amount under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, and demanded the recovery of the evaded IGST along with interest under Section 28AA.

Key Issues in the Case

The case revolved around two primary issues:
1. Inclusion of Freight and Insurance Charges in Assessable Value: The department argued that the appellant failed to include freight and insurance charges in the assessable value, as mandated by Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. The appellant contended that the FOB value declared in the invoice was equivalent to the Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) value, as there was no transportation cost or insurance required between the Bhutan Customs Station at Phuentsholing and the Indian LCS at Jaigaon.
2. Invocation of Extended Limitation Period: The department invoked the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, alleging suppression and willful misstatement by the appellant. The appellant argued that they had disclosed all relevant information in the invoice and Bill of Entry, and the case was one of interpretation rather than suppression.
Tribunal’s Observations and Judgment

Merits of the Case 

The tribunal examined the appellant’s claim that the FOB value was equivalent to the CIF value due to the absence of transportation costs and insurance between the two borders. While the appellant argued that the goods were invoiced on an FOB basis, which included transportation costs within Bhutan, the tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. The tribunal emphasized that oral arguments alone could not establish the equivalence of FOB and CIF values.

The tribunal also highlighted the terms and conditions printed on the invoice-cum-challan, which indicated that the goods were dispatched at the buyer’s risk and the seller’s responsibility ceased once the goods left the factory premises. This supported the department’s claim that transportation and insurance costs were incurred and should be included in the assessable value as per Rule 10(2) of the Valuation Rules.

Extended Limitation Period 

The tribunal scrutinized the department’s invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act. It noted that the appellant had clearly declared the FOB value and indicated NIL freight charges in the Bill of Entry. The tribunal held that the charge of suppression or willful misstatement could not be substantiated, as the appellant had disclosed all relevant information in the invoice and Bill of Entry. The tribunal emphasized that the extended limitation period could only be invoked in cases of deliberate default or willful intent to evade duty, which was not evident in this case.

Revenue Neutrality

The tribunal also considered the revenue neutrality of the case, noting that the appellant was eligible to avail credit for any duty paid on transportation and insurance costs. This further supported the appellant’s argument that there was no intention to evade duty.

Final Decision

After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. It set aside the order of the lower authority and allowed the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, as the department failed to establish suppression or willful misstatement by the appellant.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Documentary Evidence: The tribunal emphasized the need for documentary evidence to substantiate claims regarding the equivalence of FOB and CIF values. Oral arguments alone are insufficient to meet legal requirements.
2. Strict Interpretation of Suppression: The tribunal reiterated that suppression or willful misstatement must be proven with clear evidence of deliberate intent to evade duty. Mere non-payment or incorrect statements cannot be equated with suppression.
3. Revenue Neutrality: The tribunal highlighted that cases involving revenue neutrality, where the appellant is eligible to claim credit for the duty paid, are less likely to be considered as deliberate evasion.
4. Extended Limitation Period: The judgment clarified that the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act can only be invoked in cases of deliberate default or suppression, not for mere errors or misinterpretations.
Conclusion

The decision in Customs Appeal No. 75332 of 2024 serves as a crucial precedent for importers and the customs department alike. It underscores the importance of proper documentation, the need for clear evidence in cases of alleged suppression, and the significance of revenue neutrality in determining the intent behind duty evasion claims. This judgment is a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal provisions while also ensuring that enforcement actions are based on solid evidence and not mere assumptions.

Source: CESTAT Kolkata

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
March 27, 2026
CESTAT Chennai Ruled on Validity of Load Port Chartered Engineer Certificates in Second-Hand Machinery Valuation Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 27.03.2026

CESTAT Chennai Ruled on Validity of Load Port Chartered Engineer Certificates in Second-Hand Machinery Valuation Dispute

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. Abirami Weaving Mills vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Customs Appeal No. 40225 of 2017). This case revolved around the valuation of imported second-hand machinery and the rejection of the declared value based on a Chartered Engineer’s certificate. The Tribunal’s decision has set a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established guidelines and the validity of Load Port Chartered Engineer certificates.

Background of the Case

M/s. Abirami Weaving Mills imported 20 units of “Used Picanol GTM AS Rapier Looms with CAM Motion Type: GTM-2N190 with Standard Accessories” from M/s. PT Bandung Sakura Textile Mills, Indonesia. The machinery, manufactured in Belgium in 1993, was imported in used condition. The importer declared the unit price as USD 4,000 (CIF) and the total invoice value as USD 80,000 (CIF). However, the importer failed to produce a certificate from an independent Chartered Engineer or equivalent authority in the country of supply, which would provide details such as the price of new machinery, its current condition, reconditioning or repair costs, dismantling costs, and expected lifespan.

The customs authorities rejected the declared value of USD 4,000 per unit and re-determined the value at USD 7,500 per unit based on a local Chartered Engineer’s certificate. The importer paid the enhanced duty without protest but later challenged the valuation in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner upheld the original order, leading the importer to file a second appeal before the CESTAT.

Key Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments
1. Validity of Load Port Chartered Engineer’s Certificate: The appellant argued that the valuation of second-hand machinery should be based on the Load Port Chartered Engineer’s certificate, as per para-8 of the Board Circular No. 4/2008-Cus dated 12.02.2008. The Load Port certificate was obtained on 28.09.2015, prior to the issuance of Board Circular No. 25/2015 dated 15.10.2015, which introduced additional requirements for such certificates. Therefore, the rejection of the Load Port certificate was unjustified.
2. Transaction Value: Referring to Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellant contended that the transaction value of imported goods should be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India. The appellant emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that the declared value was incorrect or that the importer and supplier were related parties.
3. Inconsistencies in Local Chartered Engineer’s Certificate: The appellant highlighted that the local Chartered Engineer’s certificate did not provide details about the operational condition of the machinery, which was crucial for valuation. This raised questions about the reliability of the reassessed value.
4. Precedents: The appellant cited previous judgments, including Barani Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs [2025 (10) TMI 829 CESTAT Chennai] and Motor Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CC [2009 (244) ELT 4 (SC)], to support their case.
Respondent’s Arguments

The Departmental Representative supported the findings of the lower authorities, arguing that the rejection of the declared value was justified due to the absence of certain details in the Load Port Chartered Engineer’s certificate.

Tribunal’s Observations and Decision

After hearing both parties and reviewing the documents, the Tribunal focused on the key issue: whether the declared value of the imported second-hand machinery was rightly enhanced based solely on the local Chartered Engineer’s certificate.
1. Validity of Load Port Certificate: The Tribunal noted that the Load Port Chartered Engineer’s certificate contained all material particulars of the imported machinery, including its original value and confirmation that the goods were used and not reconditioned. The only missing detail was the year of manufacture, which the Tribunal deemed non-critical for determining the nature and value of the goods.
2. Rejection of Declared Value: The Tribunal found that the rejection of the declared value was unjustified, as the Load Port certificate was improperly dismissed. The Board’s Circular No. 4/2008-Cus clearly states that a local Chartered Engineer’s certificate should only be accepted in the absence of a proper Load Port certificate. In this case, the Load Port certificate was available and contained sufficient information to establish the nature and value of the goods.
3. Precedents and Guidelines: The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including Barani Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs, which supported the appellant’s contention that the rejection of the declared value based solely on the local Chartered Engineer’s certificate was untenable.
4. Need for Re-evaluation of Guidelines: The Tribunal observed that the Board’s circular issued in 2008 might require a re-evaluation in light of advancements in technology and the current practices in international trade.
Final Order

The Tribunal concluded that the redetermination of the declared value based solely on the local Chartered Engineer’s certificate was not in order. It set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, thereby upholding the declared value of the imported second-hand machinery.

Implications of the Judgment

This landmark decision has significant implications for importers and customs authorities:
1. Reaffirmation of Transaction Value: The judgment reinforces the principle that the transaction value of imported goods should be the primary basis for valuation, provided there is no evidence of misrepresentation or related-party transactions.
2. Importance of Load Port Certificates: The Tribunal emphasized the validity of Load Port Chartered Engineer certificates, provided they contain sufficient information to establish the nature and value of the goods.
3. Need for Updated Guidelines: The Tribunal’s observation about the need to revisit the 2008 Board Circular highlights the importance of aligning regulatory guidelines with current technological advancements and trade practices.
Conclusion

The CESTAT Chennai’s decision in the case of M/s. Abirami Weaving Mills vs. The Commissioner of Customs serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of adhering to established guidelines and respecting the validity of Load Port Chartered Engineer certificates. It also underscores the need for customs authorities to provide clear and justifiable reasons when rejecting declared values. This judgment is expected to provide clarity and guidance for future cases involving the valuation of imported second-hand machinery.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Chennai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
March 27, 2026
CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Smuggling Allegations
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 26.03.2026

CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Smuggling Allegations

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Customs Appeal No. 70501 of 2024, exonerating Appellant from allegations of smuggling Canadian-origin green peas into India. The case, which revolved around the seizure of 45,655 kilograms of green peas and four trucks, highlights critical issues surrounding the burden of proof in smuggling cases under the Customs Act, 1962.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an intelligence report received by Customs Officers alleging that Canadian-origin green peas were being smuggled into India through the Indo-Nepal border. Acting on this information, officials intercepted four trucks at appellant’s godown and office in Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, on October 12, 2021. Following an investigation, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on April 8, 2022, seeking the confiscation of the green peas and trucks under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Additional Commissioner upheld the SCN’s proposals in an Order-in-Original dated March 23, 2023, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Appellant and other penalties on individuals involved. Appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the original order on January 24, 2024. Subsequently, Appellant filed an appeal with the CESTAT, Allahabad.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Defense

Represented by Advocate, Appellant argued that the case was built solely on statements from individuals and lacked substantive evidence. The primary evidence cited by the department was the labeling on the sacks, which read “Canadian origin green peas premium quality.” The appellant contended that the department failed to establish that the goods were smuggled through the Nepal border or that the seizure occurred at a customs station. He further argued that green peas are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, which places the burden of proof on the revenue to establish the smuggled nature of goods.

Respondent’s Stand

The Authorized Representative for the revenue, reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and defended the penalties imposed.

Tribunal’s Observations

After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal made the following observations:
1. Lack of Evidence: The Tribunal noted that the recovery of green peas from the trucks near the godown was undisputed. However, the department failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the smuggled nature of the goods. The case relied heavily on statements from Mr. Pandey and the truck drivers, as well as the markings on the sacks, which were deemed insufficient to substantiate the smuggling allegations.
2. Burden of Proof: The Tribunal emphasized that green peas are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the burden of proving the smuggled nature of the goods rested entirely on the revenue. The department failed to establish the place, method, time, and individuals involved in the alleged smuggling.
3. Unreliable Statements: The adjudicating authority did not examine the individuals whose statements were relied upon, as required under Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962. Citing precedents such as M/s Flamingo (DFS) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s G-Tech Industries, the Tribunal held that unverified statements could not be relied upon as evidence.
4. Foreign Markings on Goods: The Tribunal referred to the case of M/s Gagan Deorah and other similar judgments, which established that foreign markings or origin alone do not prove the smuggled nature of goods. Corroborative evidence is essential, and the department failed to provide any.
Final Judgment

In its final order dated March 24, 2026, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and ruled in favor of Appellant. The Redemption Fine of Rs. 18,26,200 and the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act were also quashed. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue had not discharged its burden of proof and that the evidence presented was insufficient to substantiate the smuggling allegations.

Key Takeaways
1. Burden of Proof: This case underscores the importance of the burden of proof in smuggling cases, especially for goods not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The revenue must provide tangible evidence to establish the smuggled nature of goods.
2. Role of Statements: Statements from individuals involved in a case must be verified under Section 138B of the Customs Act to be considered reliable evidence.
3. Foreign Markings: The presence of foreign markings on goods does not automatically imply smuggling. Corroborative evidence is necessary to substantiate such claims.
4. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal’s reliance on previous judgments highlights the importance of consistency in legal interpretations and the need for robust evidence in cases involving allegations of smuggling.
Conclusion

The CESTAT’s decision in favor of Appellant serves as a reminder of the critical role of evidence in adjudicating smuggling cases. It reinforces the principle that allegations must be backed by concrete proof and that mere assumptions or unverified statements cannot form the basis for penal actions. This judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications for similar cases in the future, ensuring that justice is served in accordance with the law.

Source: CESTAT Allahabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
March 26, 2026
CESTAT Bangalore ruled that the goods were rightly classified under CTH 6902 9010 as “Fire Clay Bricks and Shapes
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 26.03.2026

CESTAT Bangalore ruled that the goods were rightly classified under CTH 6902 9010 as “Fire Clay Bricks and Shapes

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Regional Bench, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. The case revolved around the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1962, and the imposition of differential duty and penalties. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd., providing clarity on the classification of ceramic products under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH).

Background of the Case

M/s. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as SEPR Refractories India Limited, filed 44 Bills of Entry between January 13, 2011, and January 6, 2012, for the clearance of imported goods described as ‘Expanded Space Fire Clay Grog’. The company classified these goods under CTH 6902 9010, which pertains to refractory ceramic constructional goods. The goods were assessed to duty and cleared for home consumption without examination.

However, two consignments (Bill of Entry No. 3698261 dated June 3, 2011, and Bill of Entry No. 5363159 dated December 2, 2011) were subjected to laboratory analysis. Based on the lab reports and technical data, the Commissioner of Customs reclassified the goods under CTH 6806 2000, which pertains to expanded mineral materials. Consequently, the Commissioner demanded a differential duty of ₹15,11,499/- along with interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed an equivalent penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Aggrieved by this decision, M/s. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the CESTAT.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments

The appellant, represented by Advocate, argued that the imported goods were correctly classified under CTH 6902 9010. Key points raised by the appellant included:
1. Technical Evidence: The appellant presented a technical write-up from the manufacturer and certification from the British Ceramic Confederation, which confirmed that the goods were ceramic products shaped into spherical pellets and fired at high temperatures, meeting the criteria for classification under CTH 6902.
2. Chemical Examiner’s Reports: The reports from the Chemical Examiner confirmed that the goods were ceramic materials, fired after shaping, and composed of silicates of aluminum. These findings supported the appellant’s classification.
3. Subsequent Imports: The appellant highlighted that similar products imported in 2014 were classified under CTH 6902 9010 without dispute, further validating their claim.
4. Limitation Period: The appellant argued that there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts, and therefore, the extended period of limitation invoked by the Revenue was not justified.
Revenue’s Arguments

The Revenue, represented by Assistant Commissioner, contended that the goods were not fired after shaping, as evidenced by the supplier’s dispatch notes and packing list, which classified the goods under CTH 6806 2000. The Revenue also argued that the Chemical Examiner’s report was based on the appellant’s write-up and not on the actual manufacturing process.

Tribunal’s Observations and Decision 

After hearing from both sides, the tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Judicial Member and Hon’ble Technical Member, made the following observations:
1. Classification of Goods: The tribunal examined the technical literature provided by the manufacturer, the certification from the British Ceramic Confederation, and the Chemical Examiner’s reports. It concluded that the goods were ceramic products shaped before firing, satisfying the criteria for classification under CTH 6902 9010.
2. Chemical Examiner’s Reports: The tribunal emphasized that the Chemical Examiner’s reports were valid and should not have been disregarded by the Commissioner. It cited precedents from the Supreme Court, which held that such reports should not be dismissed unless proven erroneous.
3. Extended Limitation Period: Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, the tribunal ruled that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no evidence of suppression or misrepresentation by the appellant.
4. Revenue’s Evidence: The tribunal noted that the Revenue’s reliance on a single invoice from the supplier was insufficient to justify the reclassification of the goods under CTH 6806 2000.
Final Order

The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner’s order and confirming the classification of the goods under CTH 6902 9010. The demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty was quashed, and the appellant was granted consequential relief.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Technical Evidence: The case highlights the significance of technical documentation, certifications, and expert reports in determining the correct classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act.
2. Role of Chemical Examiner’s Reports: The tribunal reaffirmed the importance of Chemical Examiner’s reports in classification disputes, emphasizing that such reports should not be dismissed without valid reasons.
3. Extended Limitation Period: The judgment underscores that the extended period of limitation under Section 28AA of the Customs Act cannot be invoked without evidence of suppression or misrepresentation.
4. Precedents Matter: The tribunal relied on previous Supreme Court judgments to reinforce its decision, demonstrating the importance of judicial precedents in customs disputes.
Conclusion

The CESTAT’s ruling in favor of M/s. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. is a landmark decision that provides clarity on the classification of ceramic products under the Customs Tariff Act. It underscores the importance of technical evidence, expert reports, and adherence to procedural fairness in customs disputes. This judgment will serve as a valuable reference for importers and legal practitioners dealing with similar classification issues.

Connected Matter

Supreme Court Upholds Correct Classification of Penetrator 4893

Source: CESTAT Bangalore

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
March 26, 2026
CESTAT Bangalore Resolves Customs Duty Exemption for Toll Management System Imports
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 25.03.2026

CESTAT Bangalore Resolves Customs Duty Exemption for Toll Management System Imports

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

In a significant judgment, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Regional Bench, has ruled in favor of M/s. Indra Sistemas India Pvt. Ltd. and GMR entities in a case concerning the denial of customs duty exemption on imported toll management system (TMS) equipment. The case revolved around the interpretation of exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated March 17, 2012, and the compliance with its conditions.

Background of the Case 

The case originated from the import of toll collection and traffic control equipment by M/s. Indra Sistemas India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant-1) during 2012-2013. The company claimed exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus, which provides duty-free import for goods required for road construction projects. The equipment was imported for use in TMS projects on National Highways 9 and 13, which were being constructed and operated by M/s. GMR OSE Hongund Hospet Highways Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressway Pvt. Ltd. (collectively referred to as Appellant-2).

The exemption was granted based on the condition that the imported goods would be used exclusively for road construction projects and would not be sold or disposed of for five years without prior approval from customs authorities. The appellants argued that they had complied with all conditions of the notification, including furnishing the necessary undertakings and bonds to the customs authorities.

However, the Commissioner of Customs alleged that the appellants had violated the conditions of the notification. The primary contention was that Appellant-1 was not explicitly named as a sub-contractor in the Concession Agreements between the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and Appellant-2. Additionally, the Commissioner claimed that the imported equipment was transferred to Appellant-2 within five years of importation, which allegedly violated the notification’s conditions.

Key Issues in the Case 

The Tribunal considered three critical issues:
1. Eligibility for Duty Exemption: Whether the benefit of Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus was available to the imported TMS equipment used in the National Highway projects.
2. Confiscation of Goods: Whether the duty-free imported equipment was liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of Penalties: Whether penalties were justifiable under the Customs Act, 1962.
Tribunal’s Observations and Ruling

1. Eligibility for Duty Exemption 

The Tribunal ruled that Appellant-1 was eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. It noted that the Concession Agreements between NHAI and Appellant-2 allowed the appointment of sub-contractors for project implementation. Appellant-2 had entered into agreements with Appellant-1 for the supply, installation, commissioning, and maintenance of TMS, which were duly communicated to NHAI. Furthermore, NHAI issued a certificate on July 5, 2012, acknowledging Appellant-1 as a contractor for the project.

The Tribunal emphasized that the non-mention of Appellant-1’s name in the Concession Agreements did not disqualify them from availing the exemption. It referred to a 2013 CBIC circular and previous judicial precedents, which clarified that the absence of a sub-contractor’s name in the main contract does not invalidate their eligibility for exemption if the project authority certifies their role.

2. Confiscation of Goods 

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s claim that the imported equipment was liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. It held that the transfer of TMS equipment from Appellant-1 to Appellant-2 after project completion was a contractual obligation and did not constitute a violation of the notification’s conditions. The Tribunal clarified that the notification does not prohibit the transfer of goods after the completion of the project.

3. Imposition of Penalties 

The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants, stating that the allegations of aiding and abetting and suppressing facts were baseless. It ruled that the appellants had acted in compliance with the notification and had fulfilled their obligations under the Concession Agreements and sub-contractor agreements.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Interpretation of Exemption Notifications: The Tribunal underscored the importance of a harmonious reading of contracts and related documents to determine compliance with exemption notifications. It emphasized that procedural lapses should not override substantive compliance.
2. Role of Sub-Contractors: The judgment clarified that sub-contractors are eligible for duty exemptions even if their names are not explicitly mentioned in the main contract, provided their role is certified by the project authority.
3. Post-Project Transfer of Goods: The Tribunal ruled that the transfer of goods after project completion does not violate the conditions of exemption notifications, provided the goods were used exclusively for the intended purpose during the project.
4. Precedents and Circulars: The judgment relied on previous rulings and CBIC circulars to interpret the notification and resolve ambiguities.
Conclusion

The CESTAT’s ruling in favor of M/s. Indra Sistemas India Pvt. Ltd. and GMR entities is a landmark decision that provides clarity on the interpretation of exemption notifications and the role of sub-contractors in infrastructure projects. It reinforces the principle that procedural lapses should not be used to deny substantive benefits and highlights the importance of considering the overall intent and context of contracts and agreements. This judgment is expected to have a significant impact on similar cases in the future, particularly in the infrastructure and road construction sectors.

Connected Matter

Supreme Court Clarifies Duty Liability on Confiscated Medical Equipment

Source: CESTAT Bangalore

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
March 25, 2026
CESTAT Allahabad Overturns Penalty and Confiscation
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 25.03.2026

CESTAT Allahabad Overturns Penalty and Confiscation

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email 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 the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of M/s Daya Exports. The case revolved around allegations of mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported computer cabinet cases, which were ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal.

Background of the Case 

M/s Daya Exports imported a consignment of computer cabinet cases under Bill of Entry No. 4934832 dated August 7, 2024. Upon examination by customs officers on August 12, 2024, it was discovered that the consignment contained 4,431 pieces instead of the declared 4,320 pieces—an excess of 111 pieces. A Chartered Engineer was engaged to assess the goods, and his report dated August 27, 2024, described the items as “Computer Cabinet Cases (Bare Bone Systems),” which were old, used, and partially assembled platforms containing a motherboard, power supply, and fan. The Chartered Engineer estimated the value of the goods at $12 per piece, which was higher than the declared value of $7 per piece.

Based on these findings, the Additional Commissioner issued an Order-in-Original on September 23, 2024, rejecting the declared value, re-fixing the value at ₹44,98,351, and imposing a redemption fine of ₹3,60,000 and a penalty of ₹34,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting M/s Daya Exports to file an appeal with the CESTAT.

Arguments Presented by the Appellant 

Advocate for M/s Daya Exports, argued that the company had waived the issuance of a show-cause notice to avoid detention and demurrage charges, but this should not be interpreted as an acceptance of the department’s claims or a forfeiture of the right to appeal. He contended that the presence of 111 extra pieces was not a deliberate mis-declaration but a standard trade practice, as the foreign supplier had clarified that the additional pieces were included to account for potential damage during transportation. He emphasized that the quantity discrepancy was negligible and did not indicate an intent to evade duty.

Regarding the alleged undervaluation, the counsel argued that the rejection of the declared value under Rule 12 was unwarranted, as the revenue had not provided any evidence to suggest that the importer paid more than the invoice price to the foreign supplier. He also challenged the Chartered Engineer’s valuation of $12 per piece, stating that it was made without supporting evidence.

Finally, the counsel refuted the classification of the goods as incomplete computer systems, arguing that the presence of a motherboard, fan, and power supply did not constitute an unfinished computer system, as essential components like the CPU were absent.

Tribunal’s Observations and Ruling 

After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal made the following observations:
1. Quantity Mis-Declaration: The Tribunal found that the presence of 111 extra pieces was insignificant compared to the total quantity of 4,320 pieces. It accepted the foreign supplier’s explanation that the additional pieces were included to compensate for potential damage during transportation. The Tribunal ruled that this did not constitute a mis-declaration of quantity with the intent to evade duty. It further stated that the revenue could charge applicable duty on the extra pieces but that confiscation and penalty were unwarranted.
2. Value Mis-Declaration: The Tribunal noted that the Chartered Engineer’s valuation of $12 per piece was made in a casual manner without any supporting evidence. The revenue failed to provide proof that similar or identical items were imported at comparable prices or that the importer paid more than the invoice price. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no basis for re-determining the value of the goods.
3. Classification of Goods: The Tribunal rejected the classification of the goods as incomplete computer systems, stating that the presence of a motherboard, fan, and power supply did not give the items the essential character of a computer system, as they lacked a CPU. The Tribunal emphasized that the Chartered Engineer’s report used the terms “Computer Cabinet Cases” and “Bare Bone Systems” interchangeably, and there was no technical evidence to support the revenue’s classification.
Final Order

In light of these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside. The appeal filed by M/s Daya Exports was allowed, along with consequential relief as per the law.

Key Takeaways

This case highlights several important aspects of customs law and trade practices:
1. Insignificant Quantity Discrepancies: Minor discrepancies in quantity, especially when supported by valid explanations from the supplier, may not necessarily constitute mis-declaration with intent to evade duty.
2. Burden of Proof in Valuation: The revenue must provide concrete evidence to justify the rejection of declared value and re-determination of a higher value. Casual assessments without supporting documentation are insufficient.
3. Classification of Goods: Proper technical evaluation and evidence are crucial for determining the classification of imported goods. Misclassification can lead to unwarranted penalties and fines.
This ruling serves as a reminder to both importers and customs authorities to ensure that their claims and decisions are backed by solid evidence and adhere to established trade practices and legal provisions.

Source: CESTAT Allahabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
March 25, 2026