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

  • CESTAT Mumbai Orders Interest on Refund of Seized Traveller’s Cheques

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Interest on Refund of Seized Traveller’s Cheques

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.04.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Interest on Refund of Seized Traveller’s Cheques

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench ruled in favor of M/s Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., directing the Customs Department to pay interest on the refund of β‚Ή47.86 lakhs, which was encashed from 106 traveller’s cheques seized back in 2006.

    Case Background:

    • On 19.10.2006, Customs officials at CSI Airport, Mumbai seized 106 traveller’s cheques from a passenger.
    • The cheques, amounting to USD $1,07,642 (equivalent to β‚Ή47,86,334), were deposited in the State Bank of India.
    • After prolonged litigation, redemption fine and penalties totaling β‚Ή10.01 lakhs were deducted.
    • The remaining β‚Ή41.85 lakhs was refunded, but no interest was paid on the retained amount.
    • The company sought interest on the refunded amount and alternatively, foreign exchange rate-adjusted compensation.

    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 Ahmedabad Held that value cannot be re-determined on weight when units price were declared and invoiced

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Held that value cannot be re-determined on weight when units price were declared and invoiced

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.04.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Held that value cannot be re-determined on weight when units price were declared and invoiced

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad – Court No. 3, has allowed two appeals filed by ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd., setting aside penalties and redemption fine imposed by customs authorities on the grounds of alleged misdeclaration of weight in multiple Bills of Entry.

    Case Overview:

    • The case pertained to import of engineering components including:
      • Carbon Steel Forged Hemi (ASME SA266 GR2)
      • Proof Machined Low Alloy Steel Spool
      • Test Plates
    • Customs claimed excess weight in three shipments totaling over 13.37 MTS more than declared.
    • Alleged misdeclaration valued at approx. β‚Ή31.45 lakhs with total differential duty of approx. β‚Ή9.48 lakhs.

    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 Ahmedabad

    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 Mumbai No provision under Customs Act, 1962 empowers officers to collect interest in the absence of duty

    CESTAT Mumbai No provision under Customs Act, 1962 empowers officers to collect interest in the absence of duty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.04.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai No provision under Customs Act, 1962 empowers officers to collect interest in the absence of duty

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench has allowed the appeal of M/s Lotus Herbals Color Cosmetics, ordering the refund of β‚Ή1,02,818, which was collected as interest without legal authority during EPCG import clearance.

    Case Overview:

    • The appellant imported a filling machine and parts under Bill of Entry No. 7362042 dated 27.03.2020 at JNPT, Nhava Sheva.
    • At the time of filing, they did not possess an EPCG authorisation, which was later issued on 03.06.2020.
    • Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the EPCG licence was submitted after some delay.
    • Customs officers allegedly verbally demanded payment of interest for the intervening period.
    • The appellant paid β‚Ή1,02,818 as interest vide challan dated 25.06.2020, and the goods were cleared at nil customs duty under Notification No. 16/2015-Cus.

    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 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