Tag: #CESTATChennai

  • CESTAT Chennai- Clarifying the Scope of Customs Exemption for MIMO-Based Devices

    CESTAT Chennai- Clarifying the Scope of Customs Exemption for MIMO-Based Devices

    Date: 11.06.2025

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has ruled in favor of M/s Inflow Technologies Pvt. Ltd., granting them exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., despite their imported Wireless Access Points (WAPs) employing MIMO technology. The Tribunal relied heavily on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd., asserting that the term β€œMIMO and LTE Products” must be read conjunctively, not disjunctively.

    • Appellant: Inflow Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
    • Product in Question: Wireless Access Points (WAPs) imported between July 2014 and June 2017.
    • Classification: Under CTI 8517 6990 (apparatus for transmission/reception of data).
    • Claimed Exemption: Under Sl. No. 13 of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., which provides for β€˜nil’ rate of BCD for eligible telecom goods.
    • Dispute: The Commissioner rejected the exemption claim stating that since the WAPs used MIMO technology, they were excluded under Sl. No. 13(iv), which excluded β€œMIMO and LTE Products.”

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai Upholds Target Plus Scheme Benefits

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Target Plus Scheme Benefits

    Date: 10.06.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai dismissed five appeals filed by the Revenue against M/s Shakthi Knitting Ltd. and its directors. The core issue revolved around the alleged misuse of the Target Plus Scheme (TPS) through import of plastic granules purportedly unrelated to their exported productβ€”ready-made garments.

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation alleging that Shakthi Knitting Ltd. misused the TPS license to import PP/PE plastic granules, claiming they lacked a “broad nexus” with the exported garments. The DRI further alleged misrepresentation in export data submitted to DGFT, and sought cancellation/modification of the license under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. and Circular 21/2007-Cus..

    However, the DGFT itself responded in writing that the duty credit was rightly issued under the Target Plus Scheme, confirming compliance with the FTP norms.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai Upholds Transaction Value in Solar Equipment Imports by Enfinity Solar

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Transaction Value in Solar Equipment Imports by Enfinity Solar

    Date: 02.06.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, upholding the decision in favour of M/s Enfinity Solar Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the Customs Department had no valid legal grounds to load the transaction value of imports made under unrelated-party invoices, despite the alleged related-party concerns.

    The final order, pronounced on 29 May 2025, reaffirmed the legal position that valuation under the Customs Act must be based on actual commercial evidence, not assumptions or analogies to income tax transfer pricing methods.

    • Appellant: Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
    • Respondent: M/s Enfinity Solar Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
    • Imports Involved: Solar panels, photovoltaic (PV) cables, power inverters, and accessories
    • Foreign Entities: Enfinity N.V., Belgium (Parent Co.) & Enfinity Asia Pacific (Trading) Ltd., Hong Kong

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai Grants SAD Refund to LG Electronics

    CESTAT Chennai Grants SAD Refund to LG Electronics

    Date: 29.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench has allowed the appeal filed by M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., setting aside the denial of β‚Ή1,35,179/- of Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007.

    • Appellant: M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida
    • Commissionerate: Chennai Seaport
    • Appeal No.: Customs Appeal No. 42340 of 2014
    • Date of Order: 16 February 2024
    • Tribunal Members: Mrs. Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical)

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai- Classification under CTH 95062900 upheld for swim seats, arm bands, fins, and paddles

    CESTAT Chennai- Classification under CTH 95062900 upheld for swim seats, arm bands, fins, and paddles

    Date: 14.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, ruled in favour of M/s. Page Industries Ltd., setting aside the reclassification orders passed by lower authorities and confirming that various imported swimming aids and accessories were appropriately classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 95062900 as water sports equipment.

    • Importer: M/s. Page Industries Ltd., Bengaluru
    • Disputed Goods: Sea Squad Swim Seats, Arm Bands, Bio-Fuse Fitness Fins, Swimming Goggles, Headgear, and Fabric Hats (under the Speedo brand)
    • Original Claim: Classification under CTH 95062900 with applicable duty exemption under Notification No. 12/2012 (Sl. No. 503)
    • Department’s Reclassification: CTH 39269099 (articles of plastic) or CTH 95069990 (other sports equipment)
    • Key Contention: Whether the imported goods qualify as water sports equipment eligible for concessional customs duty

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai Upholds TPS Exemption

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds TPS Exemption

    Date: 09.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, dismissed an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Aircargo), Chennai, and upheld the Order-in-Original allowing M/s. Sunstar Overseas Ltd. to claim duty exemption under the Target Plus Scheme (TPS) for the import of plastic granules.

    • Importer/Respondent: M/s. Sunstar Overseas Ltd., New Delhi
    • Exported Goods: Rice and spices
    • Imported Goods: Plastic granules under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus dated 08.04.2005 (TPS Benefit)
    • Allegation: Customs claimed that plastic granules were not directly related to exported items (rice/spices) and thus not eligible for TPS exemption due to lack of “broad nexus”

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai- Valuation and Weight Allegations Not Sustainable

    CESTAT Chennai- Valuation and Weight Allegations Not Sustainable

    Date: 08.05.2025

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

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

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai uphold exemption benefits and correct classification under CTH 8415 9000

    CESTAT Chennai uphold exemption benefits and correct classification under CTH 8415 9000

    Date: 24.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench – Court No. III, has ruled in favor of M/s One Care Medical Centre, Coimbatore, quashing the reclassification of imported Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Air Conditioning Units and the denial of customs exemption benefit.

    • The appellant imported various models of Toshiba indoor and outdoor air conditioning units from M/s Toshiba Carrier (Thailand) Co. Ltd. under Bills of Entry dated 07.11.2014.
    • They classified the goods under CTH 8415 9000 and claimed benefit under Customs Notification No. 46/2011 Sl. No. 1103(1).
    • The Revenue disagreed, asserting the goods were complete air conditioning units of more than 2-ton capacity, reclassifying them under CTH 8415 8110, attracting full duty.

  • CESTAT Chennai Declares Customs Broker Suspension Appeals Infructuous Following High Court Quashing

    CESTAT Chennai Declares Customs Broker Suspension Appeals Infructuous Following High Court Quashing

    Date: 22.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench – Court No. I disposed of two appeals filed by M/s HSN Shipping Pvt. Ltd. related to the suspension and continued suspension of its Customs Broker Licence (No. R-308/CHA), declaring them infructuous in light of a prior Madras High Court order that had already quashed the impugned orders.

    • HSN Shipping Pvt. Ltd. was a licensed customs broker under CBLR, 2013, holding valid licence No. R-308/2014.
    • The company handled clearance of a consignment imported by M/s R.S. Enterprises under Bill of Entry No. 6102740 dated 15.07.2014.
    • Allegations were made that the broker forged an β€œopen chit” document at the CFS and improperly obtained signatures, leading to an order of suspension on 09.06.2015 and a subsequent Order-in-Original dated 02.07.2015 continuing the suspension under Regulation 19(2) of the CBLR, 2013.

    Handy Reader for Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Aluminium Composite Circles Under CTH 7606

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Aluminium Composite Circles Under CTH 7606

    Date: 19.4.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, in Final Order No. 40976/2024 dated 26 July 2024, upheld the classification of aluminium composite circles under CTH 7606, dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against M/s Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd.

    • Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances imported goods declared as “Aluminium Circles and Induction Base”.
    • The revenue reclassified the items as “Other articles of aluminium” under CTH 7616, demanding differential duty of β‚Ή16.13 lakhs.
    • The department argued that the goods were not simple aluminium circles but were embossed with stainless steel, making them composite items with a specific use.

    Handy Reader for Download: