𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Exports

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

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 14.10.2025

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

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

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.

Background of the Case

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 ₹33,29,154, 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.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

October 14, 2025
CESTAT Mumbai- Customs Cannot Enhance Value Without Contemporaneous Data

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 14.10.2025

CESTAT Mumbai- Customs Cannot Enhance Value Without Contemporaneous Data

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

In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, delivered a judgment on October 9, 2025, providing relief to Artex Textile Pvt Ltd in a series of customs appeals. The case revolved around the reassessment of imported polyester fabrics under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the denial of benefits under the exemption notification for additional duty of customs. This decision has far-reaching implications for importers and the interpretation of customs valuation rules and exemption notifications.

Background of the Case

Artex Textile Pvt Ltd, an importer of polyester fabrics, faced enhanced assessable values imposed by the proper officer under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. The reassessment was challenged by the importer, citing procedural lapses under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Additionally, the denial of exemption benefits under Notification No. 30/2004-Central Excise was contested.

Source: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

October 14, 2025
CESTAT Bangalore- Clerical Error in Shipping Bill Not a Ground for Confiscation or Penalty

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 14.10.2025

CESTAT Bangalore- Clerical Error in Shipping Bill Not a Ground for Confiscation or Penalty

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

In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on M/s. Avasarala Technologies Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The case revolved around alleged discrepancies in the export of engineering equipment, specifically parts of rubber processing machines. The judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between clerical errors and intentional misdeclarations in export documentation.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Avasarala Technologies Ltd., had filed three shipping bills for the export of parts of rubber processing machines. During the examination of goods, discrepancies were noted in two shipping bills (Nos. 4375372 and 4375056). Against the declared 43 sets of parts, only 15 sets were found, resulting in a shortage of 28 sets. Additionally, a weight discrepancy of 353 kgs was observed. This led to the issuance of a show-cause notice proposing confiscation of goods under Section 113(h)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the imposition of penalties under Section 114(iii).

The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 12,98,464, imposed a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs in lieu of confiscation, and levied a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

Source: CESTAT Bangalore

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

October 14, 2025
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalties in Export Valuation Dispute

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.10.2025

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalties in Export Valuation Dispute

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

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.

Background of the Case

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 ₹4,00,54,751, with a corresponding drawback claim of ₹39,35,402.37. 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 ₹61,36,200 and reduced the admissible drawback to ₹6,02,654. The goods were confiscated under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, and penalties were imposed under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

October 13, 2025
CESTAT Allahabad clarified that the word “or” in Section 114A is disjunctive not interchangeable with “and”

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.10.2025

CESTAT Allahabad clarified that the word “or” in Section 114A is disjunctive not interchangeable with “and”

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

In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the principles laid down by the Karnataka High Court regarding the interpretation of Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. This decision reiterates the importance of statutory interpretation and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, challenging the non-imposition of penalty on the interest amount under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent, M/s Royal Steel Trading, had imported goods from Malaysia under various Bills of Entry and claimed exemption under the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) based on a Certificate of Origin. However, upon verification, the certificate was found to be fake, leading to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice and subsequent adjudication.

The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 1,03,53,747, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 8,00,000, confirmed the demand for customs duty of Rs. 10,07,937 along with applicable interest, and imposed penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act. However, no penalty was imposed on the interest amount under Section 114A, which became the subject of the Revenue’s appeal.

Source: CESTAT Allahabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

October 13, 2025
CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker License

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.10.2025

CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker License

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

In a significant judgment, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has set aside the revocation of the Customs House Agent (CHA) license of M/s SK International. The case, which revolved around allegations of misdeclaration of goods during export, highlights the importance of due process and evidence in disciplinary actions against Customs Brokers.

Background of the Case

M/s SK International, a Customs House Agent, faced allegations of contravening several regulations under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004, and Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013. The accusations stemmed from their involvement in filing shipping bills for exporters allegedly attempting to export fertilizer items disguised as ‘Cephalexin Monohydrate’ to claim undue drawback benefits.

The Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequently revoked the CHA license of M/s SK International, citing violations of obligations under various regulations. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Tribunal, challenging the legality of the revocation.

Source: CESTAT Hyderabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

October 13, 2025
CESTAT Delhi- Refund of SAD Cannot Be Denied on Limitation Grounds

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 11.10.2025

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

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

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.

Background of the Case

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.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

October 11, 2025
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Penalty on CHA Under Section 112(a) of Customs Act

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 10.10.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Penalty on CHA Under Section 112(a) of Customs Act

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

In a significant legal development, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has delivered a favorable judgment for Kwick Cargo Tracers & Lifters, a Customs House Agent (CHA), in Customs Appeal No. 85445 of 2017. The appeal challenged the penalty of ₹1 lakh imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Commissioner of Customs, NS-III, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, through an Order-in-Original dated 6.1.2017.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around the import of “Melamine ware viz. Kitchenware and Tableware” by M/s. Sirthai Superware India Ltd., the main noticee in the proceedings. The Commissioner of Customs had imposed penalties on both the importer and the appellant-CHA, citing erroneous classification of goods and differential customs duty demands. However, the importer had previously challenged the same order before the Tribunal in Customs Appeal No. 85603 of 2019. In its final order dated 10.10.2019, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the importer, holding that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Source: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

October 10, 2025
CESTAT Delhi- Statement Under Section 108 Not Admissible Without Compliance of Section 138B of Customs Act

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 09.10.2025

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

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

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.

Background of the Case

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.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

October 9, 2025
Extended Timeline for enforcement of BIS for MSME Domestics Manufacturer will also apply on Imports by MSME says Madras High Court

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 09.10.2025

Extended Timeline for enforcement of BIS for MSME Domestics Manufacturer will also apply on Imports by MSME says Madras High Court

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

The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling on September 25, 2025, disposed of a writ petition filed by M/s. Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. P. Ltd, directing the Customs Department to assess and clear imported goods without insisting on a Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Registration Certificate. The judgment, delivered by Honourable Justice, brought clarity to the applicability of the Plywood and Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024, particularly concerning imports by Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs).

Background of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. P. Ltd, represented by its Managing Director, had imported 3,456 sheets of packing plywood from Vietnam, valued at USD 24,896.96. The goods arrived at Chennai on August 13, 2025, under a bill of lading dated July 29, 2025. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Customs Department to assess and clear the goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 3836297 dated August 12, 2025, without requiring a BIS Registration Certificate.

The petitioner argued that the Quality Control Order (QCO), which mandates the use of standard marks, came into force on February 28, 2025, but its provisions were postponed until August 28, 2025. As a recognized Micro Enterprise under the MSME classification, the petitioner claimed exemption from the BIS requirement until the postponed date. However, the Customs Department refused to grant this exemption, citing a communication from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated March 19, 2025, which stated that the additional time period for compliance granted to MSMEs does not apply to imports.

Source: Madras High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

October 9, 2025