ALO Partners Logo

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

Tag: #Exports

  • Delhi High Court Sets Aside the CESTAT Order of delay in filling the Customs appeal​ ​

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside the CESTAT Order of delay in filling the Customs appeal​ ​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.08.2025

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside the CESTAT Order of delay in filling the Customs appeal​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    The High Court of Delhi, in a significant judgment delivered on January 23, 2024, addressed a long-pending customs appeal involving the Commissioner of Customs ACC Import New Delhi and M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. ​ The case revolved around the condonation of an extraordinary delay in filing the appeal and the subsequent remittance of the matter to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for adjudication on merits. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appeal was filed under Section 130(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking condonation of a delay of 2267 days in filing the appeal. ​ The delay was attributed to the pendency of similar issues in other cases and the legal uncertainty surrounding the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. The respondent, M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd, represented by Advocate, did not object to the condonation of the delay, citing the precedent set in a batch of appeals decided earlier. ​ The appellant, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, relied on the judgment passed in Pr. ​ Commissioner of Customs vs. Kunal Lalani (CUSAA 20/2021), where similar matters were remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

    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: Delhi 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 Mumbai Orders Refund of Double Customs Duty

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Refund of Double Customs Duty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Refund of Double Customs Duty ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled in favor of Yazaki India Private Limited, granting a refund of Rs. 5,35,010/- paid twice as customs duty for the same import transaction. ​ This decision highlights the importance of fairness in tax administration and reinforces the principle that the government cannot unjustly retain amounts paid due to inadvertent errors. ​

    Background of the Case ​

    Yazaki India, a Pune-based company, imported insulating fittings under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8547 through the Nhava Sheva port in December 2018. ​ The company paid customs duty of Rs. ​ 5,35,010/- on 29.12.2018 for two Bills of Entry (B/E No. ​ 9449124 and B/E No. ​ 9454113). ​ However, due to an inadvertent error, the same amount was paid again on 31.12.2018. ​ Upon realizing the mistake, Yazaki India filed a refund claim on 14.01.2020, seeking reimbursement of the duplicate payment. ​ The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the refund claim, citing that it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ Aggrieved by this decision, Yazaki India approached 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 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 Bangalore Sets Aside Penalty Under Section 117​

    CESTAT Bangalore Sets Aside Penalty Under Section 117​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.08.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Sets Aside Penalty Under Section 117​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has set aside a penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, on M/s. ​ Nippon Express (India) Private Limited. ​ This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the scope of show-cause notices in adjudication proceedings. ​

    Case Overview

    The case arose from an appeal filed by M/s. Nippon Express (India) Private Limited against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. ​ 2,000 under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The penalty was imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore, through Order-in-Appeal No. ​ 791/2022 dated 23.03.2022. ​ The appellant contended that the penalty was imposed without prior notice or an opportunity to contest the proposal, violating the principles of natural justice. ​

    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 Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds

    CESTAT Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has delivered a judgment that provides relief to M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (GCPL) in a long-standing dispute over provisional refunds and interest liability. ​ The case revolved around the refund of excise duty under area-based exemption notifications and the subsequent demand for interest on provisional refunds sanctioned to the company. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases and highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. ​

    Background of the Case

    GCPL had set up manufacturing units in Assam and was availing 100% refund of duty paid under Notification No. ​ 20/2007-CE. However, an amendment via Notification No. 20/2008-CE restricted the refund to 34% of the total duty paid, with an option for manufacturers to apply for special value addition rates. ​ GCPL challenged the amended notification before the Gauhati High Court, which initially struck it down. ​ The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the validity of the amended notification. ​

    During the litigation, GCPL was granted provisional refunds amounting to Rs. ​ 24,00,07,627/- based on interim orders from the Gauhati High Court and Supreme Court. ​ After the Supreme Court’s final decision, the Department adjusted these refunds against the amounts determined under special value addition rates, leaving a net excess refund of Rs. ​ 50,96,571/-.

    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

  • CESTAT Chennai Quashes β‚Ή14.95 Lakh Late Fee on Delay in Filling Bill of Entry​

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes β‚Ή14.95 Lakh Late Fee on Delay in Filling Bill of Entry​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes β‚Ή14.95 Lakh Late Fee on Delay in Filling Bill of Entry​ ​ ​ ​

    In a recent decision by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, the imposition of a late fee of Rs. 14,95,000 under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, was set aside. This case, involving M/s. ​ ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. ​ Ltd., highlights the importance of considering the circumstances leading to delays in filing Bills of Entry and the need for judicious application of late fees. ​

    Case Background

    The dispute arose when M/s. ​ Vazhavilla Cashews, Kollam, the original importer, failed to clear a consignment of dried raw cashew nuts. ​ The goods were subsequently sold on a high-seas basis to M/s. ​ Ambalakkara Cashews, who filed a Bill of Entry on 12.08.2017. ​ However, due to financial issues, the shipper recalled the original documents and identified M/s. ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. ​ Ltd. as the new buyer.

    The procedural delays began when the new buyer applied for an amendment to the Import General Manifest (IGM) on 03.11.2017. ​ The amendment was approved on 12.12.2017, and the earlier Bill of Entry was canceled on 09.01.2018. ​ The new Bill of Entry was filed promptly on 12.01.2018. ​ Despite these efforts, the Customs Department imposed a late fee, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). ​ This led the appellant to approach 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 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 Chennai Rejected CB License revocation but upholds Penalty on the Customs Broker

    CESTAT Chennai Rejected CB License revocation but upholds Penalty on the Customs Broker

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Rejected Revenue Appeal and Upholds Penalty on Customs Broker ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the penalty imposed on M/s. ​ Allwin Cargo Services, a Customs Broker (CB). ​ The case revolved around alleged violations of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013), and the Tribunal’s decision highlights the importance of proportionality in adjudicating penalties under regulatory frameworks. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Chennai, which uncovered smuggled cigarettes worth Rs. ​ 4.13 crore in a consignment declared as “Low Melting Steel Bundle Scrap.” While the live consignment was linked to another Customs Broker, Sameer Logistics Pvt. ​ Ltd., the investigation revealed that M/s. Allwin Cargo Services had handled past consignments allegedly adopting similar methods of smuggling. ​ A Show Cause Notice was issued to M/s. ​ Allwin Cargo Services, alleging violations of CBLR, 2013, including non-verification of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) details and coordination with unauthorized individuals. ​ The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. ​ 50,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013, but did not revoke the CB’s license or forfeit the security 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 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 Delhi Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker Licence

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker Licence

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker Licence​ ​ ​

    In a significant decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside the revocation of the customs broker license of M/s Brightline (C&F) Agency. The Tribunal also overturned the forfeiture of the security deposit and the penalty imposed on the agency, providing much-needed relief to the appellant. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi, on June 15, 2021. ​ The order alleged that M/s Brightline had violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018, by filing shipping bills for exporters who were later found to be non-existent. ​ This led to the revocation of their customs broker license, forfeiture of their security deposit of β‚Ή75,000, and the imposition of a β‚Ή50,000 penalty. ​ The allegations stemmed from an analysis conducted by the Directorate General of Analytics & Risk Management (DGARM), which flagged certain exporters as “risky” based on GST registration data. ​ Among the 89 exporters identified, verification reports were provided for only four, and M/s Brightline was accused of handling consignments for these entities.

    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- Customs authorities cannot independently demand IGST without DGFT recalling

    CESTAT Chennai- Customs authorities cannot independently demand IGST without DGFT recalling

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai- Customs authorities cannot independently demand IGST without DGFT recalling ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has delivered a judgment that provides much-needed clarity and relief to importers under the Advance Authorization Scheme (AAS). The case involved M/s. ​ Suryadev Alloys and Power (P) Ltd., which challenged the imposition of IGST, interest, redemption fine, and penalty for alleged violations of the “pre-import condition” during the GST transition phase. ​ The tribunal’s decision has far-reaching implications for importers and exporters navigating the complexities of customs law and GST compliance.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose from imports made by M/s. Suryadev Alloys under the Advance Authorization Scheme between October 13, 2017, and January 9, 2019. ​ The appellant claimed IGST exemption under Customs Notification No. ​ 18/2015-Cus, even after the introduction of the “pre-import condition” via Notification No. ​ 79/2017-Cus. The customs authorities alleged non-compliance with the pre-import condition and issued a demand for IGST, interest, redemption fine, and penalty. ​ The appellant argued that the pre-import condition was impossible to fulfill for authorizations issued before October 13, 2017, as exports had already been completed prior to imports. ​ Additionally, the appellant highlighted that the jurisdictional DGFT had issued redemption letters for all Advance Authorizations, confirming the fulfillment of export obligations.

    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 Hyderabad Upholds Validity of Malaysian Certificates of Origin

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds Validity of Malaysian Certificates of Origin

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.08.2025

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds Validity of Malaysian Certificates of Origin​ ​ ​

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, recently delivered a significant judgment in a series of appeals concerning the import of cocoa powder under preferential trade agreements. This decision, pronounced on August 22, 2025, sheds light on the interpretation of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), the validity of Certificates of Origin, and the application of extended limitation periods under customs law. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the case and its implications.

    Background of the Case

    The appellantsβ€”M/s Malta Exports, M/s Ravi Foods Pvt Ltd, M/s Pahal Foods Pvt Ltd, M/s Kamala Consumer Care Pvt Ltd, and M/s Dukes Consumer Care Ltdβ€”imported cocoa powder from Malaysia, claiming concessional duty benefits under Notification No. ​ 46/2011-Cus and Notification No. ​ 53/2011-Cus. These benefits were based on Certificates of Origin issued by the Malaysian Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), certifying that the Regional Value Content (RVC) of the cocoa powder exceeded 35% of the Free on Board (FOB) value. ​

    However, the customs authorities issued show cause notices (SCNs) alleging that the RVC requirement was not met, relying on a 2014 Board letter. ​ The authorities demanded differential duty, imposed penalties, and denied the exemption benefits. ​ Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants approached 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 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

  • CESTAT Kolkata Protects Importer Rights in Valuation and Classification Dispute

    CESTAT Kolkata Protects Importer Rights in Valuation and Classification Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Protects Importer Rights in Valuation and Classification Dispute ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the impugned order against M/s Swastik Stockists and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and its late director, Appellant. ​ The case revolved around allegations of undervaluation and misclassification of imported goods, including carpets, multimedia speakers, and blankets, leading to demands for differential customs duties, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. ​ This decision marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of customs laws and the burden of proof in such cases. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s Swastik Stockists and Traders Pvt. ​ Ltd., imported multiple consignments of carpets, speakers, and blankets between 2011 and 2014. While most consignments were cleared without objections, one consignment of speakers was detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) during an investigation. ​ The DRI alleged undervaluation and misclassification of goods, issuing a Show Cause Notice in 2014 and confirming demands in an adjudication order in 2017.

    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