ALO Partners Logo

𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐎)

Tag: #Exports

  • CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation ​ ​

    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 decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has set aside penalties imposed on two appellants, in a case involving allegations of under-valuation and mis-declaration of imported goods by M/s Prince International. ​ The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), highlights the importance of evidence-based findings and the proper application of legal provisions in customs cases.

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) into M/s Prince International, Ludhiana, which was accused of evading customs duty by under-valuing and mis-declaring bicycle parts and pumps imported from China. ​ Following the investigation, penalties were imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly aiding and abetting the importer in the evasion of customs duty.

    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 Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export​ ​ ​  

    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 set aside penalties imposed on three appellants accused of illegally exporting onions to Nepal under the guise of potatoes. ​ The case, which revolved around alleged violations of a government ban on onion exports, highlights the importance of admissible evidence and procedural safeguards in adjudication processes. ​ This blog delves into the details of the case and the Tribunal’s reasoning behind its decision.

    Background of the Case

    The controversy began with the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 29, 2020, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). ​ The SCN alleged that M/s Sai Ram Enterprises, its proprietor Appellants (a Superintendent at the Land Customs Station, Toothibari) were involved in exporting onions to Nepal despite a ban imposed by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) through Notification No. 21/2019-20 dated September 29, 2019. The onions were allegedly exported under the guise of potatoes using falsified shipping bills. ​ The Joint Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the SCN and imposed penalties of Rs. ​ 5,00,000 each on the appellants under Sections 114AA and 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ These penalties were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellants to approach the Tribunal.

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi- Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemptions when export obligations are certified as fulfilled by the DGFT

    CESTAT Delhi- Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemptions when export obligations are certified as fulfilled by the DGFT

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemptions when export obligations are certified as fulfilled by the DGFT ​ ​

    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), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Svam Toyal Packaging Industries Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. ​ This case, which revolved around the classification of imported goods under the Advance Authorization Scheme, has far-reaching implications for importers and exporters operating under similar schemes. ​

    Background of the Case ​

    Svam Toyal Packaging Industries Pvt. ​ Ltd., a manufacturer and exporter of aluminum foils used in pharmaceutical packaging, had obtained eight Advance Authorizations (AAs) from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). ​ These authorizations allowed duty-free import of raw materials, including aluminum foil (50 MIC ± 10%), under the condition that the company fulfilled its export obligations. ​

    The dispute arose when the Customs Department alleged that the imported goods were misclassified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7607 19 91 instead of CTH 7607 11 90. ​ The department argued that this misclassification rendered the imports ineligible for duty exemption under Notification No. ​ 18/2015-Cus. Consequently, a demand for differential customs duty of ₹21.43 crore, along with interest and a penalty of ₹50 lakh, was raised.

    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 Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of ₹15 Lakh Cash

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of ₹15 Lakh Cash

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of ₹15 Lakh Cash​ ​

    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 landmark decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has ruled in favor of the appellant, Appellant in a case involving the confiscation of Indian currency worth Rs. 15,00,000 and the imposition of a penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), on September 15, 2025, sets a significant precedent in cases involving alleged illegal currency transportation.

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an incident on November 20, 2019, when Indian currency amounting to Rs. ​ 15,00,000 was seized from Appellant near Rabindranagar, Tripura, by a joint team of Customs Preventive Force and BSF personnel. The authorities alleged that the currency was intended for illegal export to Bangladesh through the unfenced border area. ​ Subsequently, Appellant claimed ownership of the seized currency, explaining its legitimate source.

    A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant, citing contradictory statements about the location and circumstances of the seizure. ​ While one part of the notice stated that the currency was recovered near the unfenced border area at 17:45 hours, another part mentioned that a person was apprehended moving suspiciously toward the border at 18:40 hours. ​ These inconsistencies formed the crux of the appellant’s defense.

    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

  • Supreme Court- Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil Not an Agricultural Product

    Supreme Court- Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil Not an Agricultural Product

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.09.2025

    Supreme Court- Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil Not an Agricultural Product​ ​ ​  

    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 landmark judgment delivered on May 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal of Noble Resources and Trading India Private Limited (formerly Andagro Services Pvt. ​ Ltd.) against the Union of India and others. ​ The case revolved around the classification of crude degummed soyabean oil and its eligibility for duty exemption under the Export-Import (EXIM) Policy of 2002-2007. ​

    Background of the Case

    Noble Resources, a two-star export house, had imported crude degummed soyabean oil under a duty-free credit entitlement (DFCE) certificate issued as per the EXIM Policy. The company claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification No. ​ 53/2003-Cus. dated April 1, 2003. ​ However, the customs department denied the exemption, arguing that crude degummed soyabean oil was an agricultural product and thus excluded from the benefits of the notification. ​

    The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, in an order dated January 9, 2007, upheld the department’s view and demanded duties amounting to Rs. ​ 1,00,38,321. This decision was later affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in 2019. ​ Noble Resources then approached the Supreme Court.

    Source: Supreme Court

    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 of India Upholds CESTAT Decision in Customs Valuation

    Supreme Court of India Upholds CESTAT Decision in Customs Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.09.2025

    Supreme Court of India Upholds CESTAT Decision in Customs Valuation ​ ​

     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.

    On October 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. M/s Ganpati Overseas (2023INSC881), addressing critical issues related to customs valuation under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment, authored by Justice, upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision, which had set aside the customs department’s order enhancing the value of imported goods and imposing penalties on the importer. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around allegations of under-invoicing by M/s Ganpati Overseas, which had imported tuners and saw filters from Hong Kong during 1997-1999. ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the importer had declared lower prices for the goods to evade customs duty. ​ The department relied on unattested photocopies of export declarations filed by the foreign supplier before the Hong Kong customs authority, which showed higher prices than those declared in the import invoices.

    The adjudicating authority rejected the import invoice prices and enhanced the value of the goods under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. ​ Penalties were imposed on the importer and its proprietor. ​ However, the CESTAT overturned this decision, leading to the department’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

    Source: Supreme Court

    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 Upholds Correct Classification of imported Aircraft Parts

    CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Correct Classification of imported Aircraft Parts

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.09.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Correct Classification of imported Aircraft Parts​ ​

    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 delivered a judgment that reinforces the principles of classification under the Customs Tariff Act. The case, involving M/s. Dynamatic Technologies Limited, revolved around the classification of imported products used in aircraft. ​ The Tribunal’s decision not only provides clarity on the interpretation of Section XVII of the Customs Tariff but also sets a precedent for similar disputes in the future.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Dynamatic Technologies Limited had imported various products, including Aluminium Bushes Flanges, Aluminium Fittings, Bolts, and Grommets, claiming classification under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8803 9000, which pertains to aircraft parts. ​ The Revenue, however, reclassified these items under different headings such as CTH 7616 9990, 7318 1500, 7320 9090, 8108 9090, and 8207 9090, asserting that they were general articles of iron, steel, and aluminum. ​ This reclassification led to a demand of Rs. ​ 2,05,53,718/- along with interest and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    Aggrieved by the order, the appellant approached the Tribunal, arguing that the products were specifically designed for use in aircraft and should be classified under CTH 8803.

    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

  • Gujarat High Court Ruled that the DEPB license was valid at the time of import

    Gujarat High Court Ruled that the DEPB license was valid at the time of import

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.09.2025

    Gujarat High Court Ruled that the DEPB license was valid at the time of import​ ​ ​  

    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 Gujarat High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Binani Cement Ltd., shedding light on the interplay between fraud, customs duty liability, and the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. This case serves as an important precedent for importers, exporters, and legal professionals navigating the complexities of customs law.

    Case Background

    The dispute arose when M/s Beni Exports obtained a Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) license in 2000, valued at Rs. ​ 94,56,252/-. Investigations revealed that the license was fraudulently obtained by manipulating export documents. ​ Consequently, the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) canceled the license on October 24, 2001. ​ However, before the cancellation, M/s Beni Exports had transferred the license to Binani Cement Ltd., which used it to import goods exempted from customs duty under Notification No. ​ 34/97-Cus dated April 7, 1997. ​ The Commissioner of Customs argued that since the license was invalidated due to fraud, the imports made using the license were liable for customs duty. ​ The department sought to recover the duty by invoking the extended limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, which allows recovery within five years in cases involving collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

    Source: Gujarat High Court

    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- The mandatory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs act was not followed by the Customs

    CESTAT Delhi- The mandatory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs act was not followed by the Customs

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- The mandatory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs act was not followed by the Customs ​ ​

    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 landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs imposed on Appellant, the former Managing Director of M/s Safetag International, under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards under Section 138B of the Customs Act when relying on statements recorded during investigations. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from allegations that M/s Safetag International fraudulently availed duty drawback of Rs. ​ 1,03,67,746/- by inflating the value of exported goods and failing to deliver them to the declared destination, Russia. ​ Following investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, a show cause notice was issued to seven noticees, including Appellant. ​ The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on M/s Safetag International and its Managing Director, Appellant, citing his alleged involvement in the fraudulent scheme.

    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 Kolkata provides clarity on the classification of Aluminium Formwork under Customs Tariff

    CESTAT Kolkata provides clarity on the classification of Aluminium Formwork under Customs Tariff

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata provides clarity on the classification of Aluminium Formwork under Customs Tariff​ ​

    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), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the demand of differential duty against M/s. ​ Unimarkmirania Projects LLP in a case concerning the classification of imported Aluminium Formwork Structures with Accessories. ​ The decision, delivered on September 12, 2025, brings clarity to the classification of such goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the applicability of exemption benefits under Customs Notification No. 152/2009.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when M/s. ​ Unimarkmirania Projects LLP imported Aluminium Formwork Structures with Accessories from the Republic of Korea under Bill of Entry No. ​ 4382970 dated August 6, 2019. ​ The importer classified the goods under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 76109010 and claimed exemption benefits under Sl. ​ No. 610 of Notification No. ​ 152/2009, as amended. ​ The Revenue, however, contested this classification, arguing that the goods should be classified under CTI 84806000 and that the exemption benefit should be availed under Sl. ​ No. 780 of the same notification. ​

    The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to reclassify the goods and recover differential duty, along with interest and penalties. ​ The adjudicating authority upheld the Revenue’s stance, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) affirmed this decision, though the penalty was dropped. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Tribunal.

    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