Tag: #CESTATDelhi

  • CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Over-Valuation Allegation

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Over-Valuation Allegation

    Date: 20.10.2025

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered its final verdict on the Customs Appeal No. ​ 50025 of 2020 on October 16, 2025. ​ The case revolved around allegations of overvaluation of export goods by Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd., a leading manufacturer and exporter of heavy engineering goods, including boilers and sugar plants. ​ The company had sought to quash the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which upheld the Joint Commissioner’s decision to impose fines and penalties for alleged overvaluation of goods. ​

    Background of the Case

    Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd. entered into contracts with foreign buyers for the supply of heavy engineering goods. ​ These contracts stipulated a lump sum payment for the goods, without specifying individual component costs. ​ Due to the massive size of the goods, the company exported them in partial shipments, with invoices raised on a pro-rata basis. ​ However, discrepancies arose between the Free on Board (FOB) values declared in the shipping bills and the values declared in ARE-1 forms prepared by supporting manufacturers. ​ This led to the seizure of goods exported under 16 shipping bills and the issuance of a show-cause notice alleging overvaluation and improper duty drawback claims. ​

    Key Issues in the Case

    The primary issue was whether Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd. had intentionally overvalued the export goods to claim higher duty drawback benefits. ​ The customs authorities argued that the FOB values declared in the shipping bills were inflated compared to the values in the ARE-1 forms, and re-determined the transaction value under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Exported Goods) Rules, 2007. This led to a reduction in the duty drawback amount and the imposition of fines and penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act.

    Tribunal’s Observations and Decision ​

    After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal made several key observations:

    1. FOB Value Cannot Be Modified by Customs Authorities: The Tribunal emphasized that the FOB value is a product of negotiations between the buyer and seller and cannot be modified by a stranger to the contract, including customs authorities. ​ The principle of “privity of contract” protects the agreed-upon transaction value. ​
    2. Duty Drawback on FOB Value: The Tribunal clarified that duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act is calculated as a percentage of the FOB value declared in the shipping bills. ​ Customs authorities cannot re-determine the FOB value to alter the duty drawback amount. ​
    3. Costs Added to FOB Value: The Tribunal accepted the appellant’s explanation that the difference between the ARE-1 value and the FOB value was due to additional costs such as marketing expenses, transportation, pre-shipment costs, warranty obligations, design charges, and profit margins.
    4. Statements Under Section 108 of the Customs Act: The Tribunal ruled that statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon as evidence since the provisions of Section 138B were not complied with. ​
    5. Fine and Penalties: The Tribunal set aside the imposition of fines under Section 125 and penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, stating that the allegations of overvaluation were not substantiated. ​

    Final Verdict

    The Tribunal concluded that the FOB value declared by Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd. was valid and could not be rejected or re-determined by customs authorities. ​ Consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi- Royalty Payments Not Includible in Transaction Value of Imported Goods

    CESTAT Delhi- Royalty Payments Not Includible in Transaction Value of Imported Goods

    Date: 15.10.2025

    On October 14, 2025, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. ​ Ericsson India Private Limited vs. Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. ​ This decision, which involved three appeals (Customs Appeal Nos. 50439, 50440, and 50441 of 2021), has far-reaching implications for the inclusion of royalty payments in the transaction value of imported goods under customs law.

    Ericsson India, a wholly-owned subsidiary of LM Ericsson Sweden, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of telecom equipment such as Radio Base Stations, Mobile Switching Centers, and Base Station Controllers. ​ The company imports components from its related foreign supplier, Ericsson Sweden, and pays royalties to LM Ericsson Sweden for technical know-how under a Technical Co-Operation Agreement. ​ The dispute arose when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the royalty payments made by Ericsson India to LM Ericsson Sweden should be included in the transaction value of the imported components under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of the Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. ​ The DRI also imposed penalties on Ericsson India and two of its executives, Tej Nirmal Singh and Bharat Bandhu, under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Duty Demand Over DFIA License Misuse Allegations

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Duty Demand Over DFIA License Misuse Allegations

    Date: 14.10.2025

    In a significant legal development, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a landmark judgment on October 13, 2025, in favor of M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. Ltd. and its Director. ​ The case revolved around the alleged misuse of Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) licenses for importing epoxy resin under the guise of impregnating resin. ​

    The case originated from a show-cause notice (SCN) issued by the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on January 29, 2015. The SCN alleged that M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. ​ Ltd. had fraudulently imported epoxy resin under DFIA licenses issued to Kanpur-based leather exporters. ​ The DRI claimed that the DFIA licenses permitted the import of impregnating resin, not epoxy resin, and accused the importer of misdeclaring the goods to claim duty exemptions under Notification No. ​ 98/2009-Customs dated September 11, 2009. ​

    The Joint Commissioner upheld the allegations in the SCN, confirming a demand of differential duty amounting to β‚Ή33,29,154, along with applicable interest and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) later upheld this decision, leading the appellants to file an appeal with the CESTAT.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalties in Export Valuation Dispute

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalties in Export Valuation Dispute

    Date: 13.10.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Emerald Overseas vs. ​ Principal Commissioner of Customs (Customs Appeal No. ​ 51100 of 2022). ​ This decision, dated October 1, 2025, addresses critical issues surrounding the valuation of export goods and the liability of such goods to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The ruling provides much-needed clarity for exporters and customs authorities alike.

    Emerald Overseas, the appellant, had filed eight shipping bills on June 12, 2017, to export garments under a claim of drawback. ​ The declared Free on Board (FOB) value of the goods was β‚Ή4,00,54,751, with a corresponding drawback claim of β‚Ή39,35,402.37. ​ However, customs authorities suspected overvaluation of the goods to fraudulently claim a higher drawback. ​ Following an investigation, the Additional Commissioner re-determined the FOB value to β‚Ή61,36,200 and reduced the admissible drawback to β‚Ή6,02,654. ​ The goods were confiscated under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, and penalties were imposed under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi- Refund of SAD Cannot Be Denied on Limitation Grounds

    CESTAT Delhi- Refund of SAD Cannot Be Denied on Limitation Grounds

    Date: 11.10.2025

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has delivered a judgment that brings clarity to the contentious issue of the time limit for claiming refunds of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Cus. This decision, pronounced on October 9, 2025, in the case of M/s Arjun Enterprises Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, is a landmark for importers seeking refunds of SAD.

    The appellant, M/s Arjun Enterprises Pvt. ​ Ltd., had filed a refund claim of Rs. ​ 1,91,363/- on July 26, 2018, for the SAD paid on imported goods under a Bill of Entry dated July 2, 2016. However, the claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds of limitation, as the refund was filed beyond one year from the date of payment of the duty. ​ This rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal. ​ The crux of the dispute revolved around whether the one-year limitation period for filing a refund claim should be calculated from the date of payment of SAD or from the date of sale of the imported goods.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi- Statement Under Section 108 Not Admissible Without Compliance of Section 138B of Customs Act

    CESTAT Delhi- Statement Under Section 108 Not Admissible Without Compliance of Section 138B of Customs Act

    Date: 09.10.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of A R Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, Customs (Preventive). ​This decision, issued on October 1, 2025, sheds light on the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the procedural safeguards required under Section 138B of the Act. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the case and its implications.

    The appeal arose from an order dated May 28, 2021, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which upheld an earlier order by the Joint Commissioner of Customs. The dispute revolved around the reassessment of the value of imported “polyester knitted fabric mixed” declared in two Bills of Entry dated October 3, 2019. ​ The Joint Commissioner had rejected the declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and reassessed it under Rule 5 based on contemporary import data. ​ This reassessment led to the recovery of differential customs duty, penalties, and confiscation of goods with an option to pay a redemption fine. ​

    The Commissioner (Appeals) relied solely on the appellant’s statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, where the appellant had admitted to undervaluation and waived their right to a show cause notice and personal hearing.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi- Procedural Lapse in Filing Returns Does Not Warrant Penalty Under Customs Act

    CESTAT Delhi- Procedural Lapse in Filing Returns Does Not Warrant Penalty Under Customs Act

    Date: 08.10.2025

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside penalties imposed on M/s Paramount Surgimed Limited for alleged procedural lapses in filing quarterly returns under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017. This decision, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), highlights the distinction between procedural non-compliance and deliberate contravention of legal provisions, offering valuable insights for importers and businesses availing exemption benefits under customs law.

    M/s Paramount Surgimed Limited, an importer availing exemption under Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Cus., was penalized for late filing of quarterly returns for multiple quarters between July 2017 and March 2019. The penalties, totaling Rs. 1,75,000, were imposed under Section 158 of the Customs Act, 1962, for contravention of Rule 6(3) of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017. The appellant challenged the penalties, arguing that the alleged non-compliance was purely procedural and lacked any intent to evade revenue or commit fraud.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi Upholds Correct Classification and Valuation of Imported Goods

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds Correct Classification and Valuation of Imported Goods

    Date: 07.10.2025

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, Principal Bench, has ruled in favor of M/s Simpex Industries in Customs Appeal No. 50071 of 2025. ​ The appeal challenged the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi, which had reclassified imported goods and rejected their declared value. ​ The Tribunal’s decision, pronounced on 06.10.2025, is a significant victory for importers and reinforces the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to procedural requirements.

    M/s Simpex Industries, a regular importer of photographic equipment, filed an appeal against the Principal Commissioner’s order that:

    1. Reclassified their imported goods (LED continuous lighting equipment) from Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9006 99 00 (photographic flashlights) to CTH 9405 40 10 (lamps and lighting fittings).
    2. Rejected the declared value of Rs. ​ 22.68 crore and re-determined it as Rs. ​ 27.94 crore, citing alleged undervaluation.

    The appellant argued that the goods were correctly classified under CTH 9006 99 00 and that the declared value was accurate. ​ They relied on previous favorable orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Joint Commissioner, which had been accepted by the department.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi Ruled on Provisional Release of Gold Dore Bars Amid Import Dispute

    CESTAT Delhi Ruled on Provisional Release of Gold Dore Bars Amid Import Dispute

    Date: 06.10.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Tasha Gold Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. ​ This case revolved around the provisional release of 27 gold dore bars imported by the appellant, which were seized by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on allegations of non-compliance with import conditions.

    Tasha Gold Pvt. ​ Ltd., a refinery, imported 27 gold dore bars under a valid import license issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The import was made under the preferential tariff scheme of Notification No. ​ 96/2008-Cus., as the goods originated from the Republic of Rwanda, a Lesser Developed Country (LDC). ​ However, the DRI seized the consignment, citing alleged violations of Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Cus., including:

    1. One gold dore bar weighing less than the prescribed 5 kg. ​
    2. Doubts over the genuineness of the assay certificate. ​
    3. Gold content in some bars marginally exceeding the permissible 95% purity. ​

    The appellant sought provisional release of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, but their request was denied by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. ​ Aggrieved, the appellant approached the CESTAT.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker License

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker License

    Date: 04.10.2025

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside the revocation of the Customs Broker (CB) license of M/s. ICS Cargo. ​ This case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the need for evidence-based adjudication in regulatory matters. ​ The judgment, delivered on January 6, 2023, is a significant win for the appellant and underscores the principles of fairness and justice in administrative proceedings.

    M/s. ICS Cargo, a Customs House Agent (CHA), faced allegations of facilitating customs clearance for undervalued imports of power tools and other goods. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the appellant had connived with importers to misuse Importer Exporter Codes (IEC) for monetary gain, violating the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. ​ Based on these allegations, the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), Delhi, revoked the appellant’s license, forfeited the security deposit, and imposed penalties. ​ The appellant challenged the revocation, arguing that the proceedings were barred by time and that the allegations were baseless and unsupported by evidence.

    Handy Download: