ALO Partners Logo

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πšπ° 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐬 (π€π‹πŽ)

Tag: #Customs Duty

  • CESTAT Kolkata Upholds DGFT Clarification

    CESTAT Kolkata Upholds DGFT Clarification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.07.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Upholds DGFT Clarification

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s India Carbon Ltd, affirming their right to import Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) for manufacturing Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC). This judgment highlights the importance of regulatory clarity and adherence to policy guidelines in the import-export domain. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s India Carbon Ltd, a leading calciner, specializes in manufacturing CPC by processing RPC. ​ CPC is a critical component used in anode making for the aluminum industry. ​ Until October 2019, the import of RPC with any sulphur content was unrestricted. ​ However, following a Supreme Court order, the Central Government amended the import policy, imposing conditions on RPC imports. ​ Licenses for RPC imports were issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) based on recommendations from an Expert Committee. ​

    In 2021, M/s India Carbon Ltd was granted a license to import 37,777 M.T. of RPC for anode making in the aluminum industry. ​ However, a portion of the imported RPC was seized by Customs Authorities, citing alleged violations of the import policy due to sulphur content exceeding 3.5%. ​ This led to a series of legal proceedings, culminating in the present appeal before the Tribunal.

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

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Allows Customs Duty Exemption for Medical Implants

    CESTAT Mumbai Allows Customs Duty Exemption for Medical Implants

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Allows Customs Duty Exemption for Medical Implants ​

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled in favor of Smith & Nephew Healthcare Private Limited, allowing their appeal against the denial of customs duty exemption on imported medical implants. This decision, pronounced on July 21, 2025, sets a significant precedent for the interpretation of exemption notifications under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    Smith & Nephew Healthcare, a leading supplier of orthopedic and medical appliances, had been importing knee and hip implants, among other medical devices, under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9021 3100 and 9021 1000. ​ They claimed customs duty exemption under Serial No. ​ 578 of Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Customs dated June 30, 2017, and Notification No. ​ 01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017. ​ These exemptions were intended for assistive devices, rehabilitation aids, and other goods for disabled persons. ​

    However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the imported goods were not exclusively used for disabled persons, as required by the exemption notification. ​ Following an investigation, the Commissioner of Customs denied the exemption, demanded differential duty of over Rs. ​ 210 crore, and imposed penalties and fines. ​

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

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Rule 2(a) in Customs Classification

    Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Rule 2(a) in Customs Classification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.07.2025

    Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Rule 2(a) in Customs Classification

    The Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Sony India Ltd., has dismissed the Customs Department’s appeal and upheld the decision of the CESTAT in favor of Sony India Ltd., clarifying the application of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Customs Tariff.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the importation of various components of Colour Television (CTV) models by Sony India Ltd. between 1995 and 1997. The Customs authorities alleged that Sony had effectively imported Complete CTV Sets in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) form, but declared them as mere components to avail concessional duty.

    The Commissioner of Customs, relying on Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, clubbed the 94 consignments of parts imported over 22 months and treated them as complete CTVs, thereby raising a massive differential duty demand of β‚Ή42.89 crores, with penalties of β‚Ή30.19 crores under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

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

    Source: Supreme Court of India

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Bangalore Upholds ISO Standards in Newsprint Classification

    CESTAT Bangalore Upholds ISO Standards in Newsprint Classification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.07.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Upholds ISO Standards in Newsprint Classification

    In a landmark ruling that reinforces the importance of adhering to international testing standards in customs classification, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, in Final Order No. 21063/2025, allowed the appeal of M/s. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., setting aside a duty demand of β‚Ή30.44 lakhs on imported newsprint.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose from the import of 243.83 metric tonnes of paper in reels by Malayala Manorama under Bill of Entry No. 100946 dated 18.05.1999, declaring the goods as β€œNewsprint” falling under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 4801.80, which attracted concessional or nil rate of duty.

    Customs authorities initially allowed clearance on a provisional basis. However, laboratory testing later indicated that the mechanical wood pulp (MWP) content in the imported paper was less than 65%, disqualifying it as “newsprint” under Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 48 of the Customs Tariff Act. Consequently, the goods were reclassified under CTH 480260/480290, and a differential duty of β‚Ή30.44 lakhs was demanded.

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

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi-Customs Cannot Alter FOB Value to Deny Export Incentives

    CESTAT Delhi-Customs Cannot Alter FOB Value to Deny Export Incentives

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.07.2025

    CESTAT Delhi-Customs Cannot Alter FOB Value to Deny Export Incentives

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowed six appeals challenging the re-determination of Free on Board (FOB) export values and the resultant denial of export incentives. The judgment strikes at the root of Customs’ authority to modify transaction values between exporters and foreign buyers.

    Background of the Case

    Six appellants, including M/s Mahir Fashions (P) Ltd., Naaz Impex, Almas Creations, and individuals, were issued a common Show Cause Notice dated 27.02.2019 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleging overvaluation of readymade garments exported under Drawback and DEPB schemes.

    The Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad passed an Order-in-Original (No. 15/2011 dated 24.03.2011) which:

    • Rejected declared FOB invoice values of exports.
    • Re-determined lower FOB values.
    • Ordered recovery of excess incentives (drawback and DEPB).
    • Imposed confiscation of goods and penalties totaling several crores.
    • Held the exported goods liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalties under Section 114.

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

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai Favors Importer in PVC Resin Classification Dispute

    CESTAT Chennai Favors Importer in PVC Resin Classification Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.07.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Favors Importer in PVC Resin Classification Dispute

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal filed by Ram Nath Co. Pvt. Ltd. The case centered on the correct classification of PVC Resin SP 660 Suspension Grade and the eligibility of the importer to claim the benefit under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.

    The Tribunal reiterated the legal principle that a specific tariff entry must be preferred over a general or residual one, upholding the classification under CTH 39042110 and rejecting the Department’s reclassification under CTH 39041090.

    Background of the Case

    • The appellant imported PVC Resin SP 660 (Suspension Grade) and classified it under CTH 39042110 (Polyvinyl Chloride resins, non-plasticised) while claiming exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus.
    • The Department, based on a test report from CIPET, reclassified the product under CTH 39041090 (Polyvinyl Chloride not mixed with other substances – Other) and denied the exemption.
    • The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reclassification, prompting the importer to file an appeal before CESTAT.

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

    Source: CESTAT Chennai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Allows Conversion of 1767 Shipping Bills Beyond 3-Year Limit

    CESTAT Mumbai Allows Conversion of 1767 Shipping Bills Beyond 3-Year Limit

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Allows Conversion of 1767 Shipping Bills Beyond 3-Year Limit

    Background

    ADF Foods Ltd., a leading exporter of pickles, namkeens, and chutneys, approached the Commissioner of Customs (NS-II), Nhava Sheva seeking conversion of 2463 shipping bills from the Drawback Scheme to the Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) Scheme under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    While the Commissioner allowed conversion for 696 shipping bills, conversion for the remaining 1767 shipping bills was rejected on the ground of being beyond 3 years from the date of exportβ€”by invoking Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

    Key Issues

    1. Whether a time limit of 3 years can be imposed on conversion under Section 149 of the Customs Act?
    2. Whether conversion is impermissible if benefit of the original export scheme (Drawback) has already been availed?
    3. Whether procedural barriers in circulars can override statutory provisions?

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

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Drawback Recovery and Penalty

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Drawback Recovery and Penalty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.07.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Drawback Recovery and Penalty

    Background of the Case

    The case revolves around allegations of fraudulent claim of duty drawback and DEPB credits by three exporters who allegedly mis-declared goods as high-value items like gear cutting tools of cobalt-bearing high-speed steel and heat-resistant rubber tension tapes through the Ludhiana port.

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Amritsar, initiated investigations linking the appellants to a broader fraud syndicate allegedly operated shell firms like Jyoti Steel and Krishna Hardware. The appellants were accused of receiving fictitious invoices from these shell companies to claim inflated export benefits.

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

    Source: CESTAT Chandigarh

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies Travertine Classification and Upholds Exemption for Marble Slabs

    CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies Travertine Classification and Upholds Exemption for Marble Slabs

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.07.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies Travertine Classification and Upholds Exemption for Marble Slabs

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, in Final Order Nos. 21002-21004/2025 dated 15.07.2025, held that Travertineβ€”a calcareous stoneβ€”is a variety of Marble, and therefore eligible for the concessional Central Excise duty (CVD) benefit under Sl. No. 54 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. This decision sets aside duty demands and penalties imposed on M/s Marble Centre International Pvt. Ltd. and its Executive Director.

    Background of the Case

    • The appellant imported Honed/Semi-Polished Marble Slabs including Travertino Titanium, Travertine Extence, Silver Beige, etc., and classified them under CTH 68022190.
    • The customs authority denied them the benefit of reduced CVD @ Rs. 60 per sq. metre under Notification No. 12/2012-CE, arguing that Travertine is not marble.
    • Demand notices for differential duty amounting to over β‚Ή1.24 crore, along with interest and personal penalties, were issued.

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

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Orders 12% Interest on β‚Ή50 Lakh Refund to Exporter

    CESTAT Kolkata Orders 12% Interest on β‚Ή50 Lakh Refund to Exporter

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.07.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Orders 12% Interest on β‚Ή50 Lakh Refund to Exporter

    In a significant pro-importer decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, in the case of M/s Alliance International v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [Final Order No. 76921/2025 dated 15.07.2025], has upheld the right of the appellant to receive interest at 12% per annum on a pre-deposit of β‚Ή50 lakh made during the investigation stage. This ruling reinforces the jurisprudence that interest must be paid on pre-deposits when the same are refunded post-adjudication.

    Case Background

    • Appellant: M/s Alliance International, Chandigarh
    • Respondent: Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
    • Issue: Denial of interest on β‚Ή50 lakh refunded post-investigation
    • Relevant Period: Exports made between July 2016 – August 2020
    • Controversy: Alleged misdeclaration of exported goods as refractory mortar instead of chrome ore concentrateβ€”a restricted item liable to 30% export duty

    During the course of the investigation initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the appellant was compelled to deposit β‚Ή50,00,000 on 16.10.2020. Eventually, the adjudicating authority, vide order dated 31.01.2023, ruled in favour of the appellant and directed refund of the deposit.

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

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com