ALO Partners Logo

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Customs Law

  • CESTAT New Delhi Quashes Customs Order Due to Inordinate Delay in Adjudication

    CESTAT New Delhi Quashes Customs Order Due to Inordinate Delay in Adjudication

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.04.2025

    CESTAT New Delhi Quashes Customs Order Due to Inordinate Delay in Adjudication

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Principal Bench, has set aside a 2023 customs adjudication order issued against Innovale Investment Pte Ltd, ruling that the inordinate delay of nearly 10 years in adjudicating a show cause notice rendered the proceedings unsustainable in law.

    Case Overview:

    • The dispute pertained to the import of an Embraer Phenom 100 aircraft under Bill of Entry No. 269117 dated 24.06.2011.
    • The aircraft was provisionally released against a bond and bank guarantee of β‚Ή4.10 crore.
    • Customs authorities alleged misuse of exemption under Notification No. 01/2002-Cus as amended by Notification 01/2011-Cus, and issued a show cause notice on 31.07.2013.
    • On 19.01.2023, the Principal Commissioner of Customs ordered:
      • Confiscation of the aircraft under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act.
      • Redemption fine of β‚Ή1 crore under Section 125.
      • Penalty of β‚Ή25 lakh under Section 112(a).

    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 New Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

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

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

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.04.2025

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

    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.

    Case Background:

    • 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.

    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 Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds DFIA Exemption on Lithium-Ion Battery Imports

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds DFIA Exemption on Lithium-Ion Battery Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.04.2025

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds DFIA Exemption on Lithium-Ion Battery Imports

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad Bench – Court No. I has dismissed the Department’s appeal and upheld the exemption granted to M/s Olectra Greentech Ltd. for import of Lithium-ion batteries under a Transferable DFIA (Duty-Free Import Authorisation) scheme.

    Background:

    • Olectra Greentech imported lithium-ion cells under a DFIA license issued against exports of Agricultural Tractors.
    • The customs department denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/2023-Cus dated 01.04.2023, stating that lithium-ion batteries do not match the export input description of “automotive batteries.”
    • The Commissioner (Appeals) had earlier ruled in favor of Olectra, prompting a departmental appeal.

    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 Hyderabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Bangalore set aside the re-determined valuation

    CESTAT Bangalore set aside the re-determined valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.04.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore set aside the re-determined valuation

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench, has ruled in favor of M/s Saash Enterprises, setting aside a customs order that had rejected the declared transaction value of imported laminators, binding machines, and related equipment. The Tribunal quashed the re-determined valuation, confiscation, penalty, and fine imposed by the lower authorities.

    Case Background:

    • The case involved Bill of Entry No. 8730452 dated 11.12.2012 for goods including laminators, wire binding machines, and paper cutters.
    • Although the physical description and quantity of the goods matched the import documentation, the customs authorities questioned the declared value and engaged a Chartered Engineer, who estimated a value of USD 69,021 against the declared USD 55,142.06.
    • Based on this, customs re-valued the consignment to β‚Ή46.43 lakhs (from β‚Ή30.96 lakhs) and imposed:
      • Redemption fine of β‚Ή5,00,000
      • Penalty of β‚Ή2,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962

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

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

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

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Aluminium Composite Circles Under CTH 7606

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.4.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Aluminium Composite Circles Under CTH 7606

    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.

    Case Background:

    • 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.

    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 Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.04.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench (Court No. 2) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against M/s Kiran Trading Company, thereby upholding the order of the Commissioner (Port), Kolkata, which had dropped proceedings initiated under a DRI show cause notice.

    Case Background:

    1. The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Original dated 23.10.2018, which dropped charges of mis-declaration of value and evasion of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on imports of Chinese-origin Melamine by M/s Kiran Trading Company. ​
    2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged over-invoicing to evade ADD, based on investigations and analysis of import patterns.

    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 Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.4.2025

    CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s JLC Electromet Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur. ​ This decision sheds light on the nuanced distinction between Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Additional Duty of Customs, as well as the applicability of interest on delayed IGST payments. ​ Let’s dive into the details of this case and its implications.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s JLC Electromet Pvt. ​ Ltd., imported goods under 13 Advance Authorizations, availing exemptions from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and IGST. ​ However, the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) found that the exemption from IGST was incorrectly claimed, as the appellant did not fulfill the “actual user” condition required under the scheme. ​ Upon being notified, the appellant paid the IGST along with interest.

    The dispute arose over the interest payment. ​ The appellant argued that IGST, being an Additional Duty of Customs, should not attract interest under the provisions of the Customs Act, citing precedents from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. ​ The Commissioner of Customs, however, appropriated the interest paid by the appellant, leading to this appeal.

    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 New Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Reader for Download:

    ALO Document 18.04.2025Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com