𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Facebook

Bombay High Court Dismisses Customs Appeal: Upholds CESTAT Order for Unconditional Release of Seized Goods
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 01.01.2026

Bombay High Court Dismisses Customs Appeal: Upholds CESTAT Order for Unconditional Release of Seized Goods

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 Bombay High Court recently delivered a judgment in favor of VKC Nuts Private Limited, dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V. The case revolved around the import of 791 bags of in-shell walnuts by VKC Nuts under the Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) scheme, which allows duty-free import of items listed in the DFIA scrip. The court upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (CESTAT) decision to release the seized goods unconditionally, marking a victory for VKC Nuts.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when VKC Nuts imported 791 bags of in-shell walnuts under Bill of Entry No. 9878513 dated January 31, 2019. The company claimed duty exemption under Notification No. 98/2009-Cus dated September 11, 2009, based on DFIA scrips issued against the import item “dietary fibre” under Standard Input Output Norms (SION) E5. The goods were cleared without payment of duty by debiting the DFIA scrip.

However, the Commissioner of Customs later seized the walnuts, alleging that the duty exemption was wrongly claimed and that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent company sought provisional release of the goods, which was granted by the adjudicating authority on June 28, 2019, subject to stringent conditions, including furnishing a bond of ₹36,54,847 and a bank guarantee of ₹18,27,423.

Dissatisfied with these conditions, VKC Nuts filed an appeal with the CESTAT, Mumbai. The Tribunal ruled in favor of VKC Nuts, observing that the imported in-shell walnuts were not liable for confiscation and directed their unconditional release. The Tribunal also ordered the return of the bond and bank guarantee furnished by the company.

The Appeal to the Bombay High Court 

The Commissioner of Customs challenged the CESTAT’s decision in the Bombay High Court, proposing two substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the CESTAT was correct in setting aside the conditions imposed by the adjudicating authority for the provisional release of the seized in-shell walnuts.
2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal after ten months from the conclusion of the hearing was justified.
The Commissioner argued that the Tribunal’s decision was premature, as the case was yet to be fully adjudicated. The appellant also contended that the benefit of duty exemption was wrongly claimed and that the seized goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act.

The High Court’s Judgment 

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of VKC Nuts Private Limited. The court made the following observations:
1. No Substantial Question of Law: The court found that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. It noted that the Tribunal had relied on established precedents, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Global Exim and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.  and the Tribunal’s decision in Uni Bourne Food Ingredients LLP vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad-II. Both cases had allowed the import of in-shell walnuts under DFIA scrips for dietary fibre.
2. Technical Opinion: The court highlighted the technical opinion provided by the Joint Director of Jawahar Customs House Laboratory, which stated that walnuts could be used as a source of dietary fibre in the manufacture of biscuits, cookies, and confectionery. The Commissioner of Customs did not present any evidence to refute this opinion.
3. Arbitrary Actions: The court noted that the same communication from the Commissioner of Customs had allowed the release of 794 bags of in-shell walnuts imported under DFIA scrips for “nut and nut products” while seizing the 791 bags imported under “dietary fibre.” The court deemed this action arbitrary and inconsistent.
4. Provisional Release Conditions: The court emphasized that Section 110A of the Customs Act provides the adjudicating authority with discretion regarding the conditions for provisional release. However, the Tribunal also has the authority to exercise this discretion. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal’s decision to order the unconditional release of the goods.
5. Timeliness of the Tribunal’s Order: The court dismissed the appellant’s argument regarding the delay in the Tribunal’s decision, stating that there is no statutory limitation under the Customs Act for passing an order after the conclusion of a hearing.
Key Takeaways

This case highlights several important legal principles:
1. DFIA Scheme and Transferability: Once the transferability of a DFIA is approved, customs authorities cannot impose restrictive conditions on the transferee to deny duty exemptions, as long as the imported goods are covered under the description and quantity mentioned in the DFIA.
2. Role of Technical Opinions: Technical opinions play a crucial role in determining the classification and usability of imported goods. In this case, the court relied on the opinion of the Joint Director, Jawahar Customs House Laboratory, which was not contested by the appellant.
3. Consistency in Adjudication: The court emphasized the importance of consistency in decisions by customs authorities, highlighting the arbitrary nature of allowing the release of one set of goods while seizing another set of identical goods.
4. Judicial Precedents: The court reaffirmed the importance of adhering to established legal precedents, particularly when similar cases have been decided by other High Courts.
Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in favor of VKC Nuts Private Limited is a landmark judgment that underscores the importance of adhering to legal precedents, respecting technical opinions, and ensuring consistency in administrative actions. The dismissal of the appeal serves as a reminder to customs authorities to exercise their powers judiciously and in accordance with established legal principles. This case is a significant win for importers operating under the DFIA scheme and sets a precedent for similar disputes in the future.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
January 1, 2026
CESTAT Mumbai Resolves Dispute on Job Work and Advance License Compliance Under Customs Notification
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 31.12.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Resolves Dispute on Job Work and Advance License Compliance Under Customs Notification

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) Mumbai recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Scottish Chemical Industries and M/s Scottish Chemical & Fluxes versus The Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion). This case revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 30/97 and the conditions surrounding the utilization of duty-free imported goods under the Advance License scheme. The judgment, delivered on November 14, 2025, has set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Background of the Case

M/s Scottish Chemical Industries (SCI) and its sister concern, M/s Scottish Chemical & Fluxes (SCF), are manufacturing and exporting units that utilized Advance Licenses to import Per Chloro Ethylene (PCE) for the production and export of HexaChloro Ethane (Hexa) under Standard Input Output Norms (SION). Between 1997 and 2002, SCI imported 5179.374 MT of PCE under nine licenses, using 82% of the material in its own factory and transferring 18% to its sister concern, SCF, for job work. The export obligations were fulfilled, remittances were received, and the licenses were redeemed by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). However, the Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in 2003, alleging misrepresentation and diversion of goods, and demanded Rs. 1.22 crore along with penalties.

Key Issues in the Case 

The case raised two primary issues:
1. Competency of DRI Officers to Issue Show Cause Notices: The appellants argued that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers lacked jurisdiction to issue SCNs, relying on the Mangali Impex case. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Canon India case and subsequent amendments in the Finance Act, 2022, which validated the competency of DRI officers to issue SCNs under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Violation of Notification No. 30/97: The Revenue alleged that SCI violated the “Actual User” condition of the notification by transferring duty-free imported PCE to its sister concern, SCF, for job work without prior permission. The Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the SCN and confirmed the demand, stating that the transfer of goods for job work constituted a violation of the notification.
Tribunal’s Observations and Judgment

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal made the following key observations:
1. Competency of DRI Officers: The Tribunal upheld the competency of DRI officers to issue SCNs, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Canon India and the retrospective validation provided by the Finance Act, 2022.
2. Job Work and Notification No. 30/97: The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of Galaxy Surfactants – 2023 (384) ELT 357, which clarified that raw materials imported under Notification No. 30/97 could be transferred for job work without violating the “Actual User” condition. The High Court held that such transfers do not constitute a sale or transfer to another person, as long as the materials are used for manufacturing and the export obligation is fulfilled.
3. Procedural Lapse: The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants did not obtain prior permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs before sending the goods for job work. However, it deemed this a procedural lapse and ruled that duty could not be imposed solely on this basis.
4. Fulfillment of Export Obligation: The Tribunal noted that SCI had fulfilled its export obligation, and the imported materials were used for manufacturing HexaChloro Ethane, either in its own factory or through job work at SCF. Therefore, the appellants did not violate the conditions of Notification No. 30/97.
Final Decision

Based on the above observations, the Tribunal allowed both appeals (C/890/2010 & C/891/2010) filed by the appellants, setting aside the demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Clarification on DRI Jurisdiction: The judgment reinforces the competency of DRI officers to issue SCNs under Section 28 of the Customs Act, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Canon India and the amendments in the Finance Act, 2022.
2. Job Work Under Notification No. 30/97: The Tribunal’s reliance on the Galaxy Surfactants case provides clarity on the permissibility of transferring duty-free imported goods for job work, as long as the export obligation is fulfilled and the goods are not sold or transferred to another person.
3. Procedural Lapses: The judgment highlights that minor procedural lapses, such as not obtaining prior permission for job work, should not result in the denial of exemption benefits under beneficial notifications.
4. Importance of Fulfilling Export Obligations: The case underscores the significance of fulfilling export obligations under the Advance License scheme, which can mitigate allegations of customs violations.
Conclusion

The CESTAT Mumbai’s judgment in this case is a landmark decision that provides much-needed clarity on the interpretation of Notification No. 30/97 and the conditions surrounding the utilization of duty-free imported goods. It emphasizes the importance of fulfilling export obligations and highlights that procedural lapses should not lead to the denial of exemption benefits. This decision will serve as a guiding precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring a fair and consistent application of customs laws and policies.

Source: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 31, 2025
High Court of Gujarat Upholds Customs Duty Exemption for Inshell Walnuts Under DFIA Scheme
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 31.12.2025

High Court of Gujarat Upholds Customs Duty Exemption for Inshell Walnuts Under DFIA Scheme

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 December 24, 2025, the High Court of Gujarat delivered a significant judgment in the case of The Commissioner of Customs – Kandla vs. M/s Devam Impex (R/Tax Appeal No. 507 of 2025). The case revolved around the applicability of Customs Notification No. 25/2023-Cus dated April 1, 2023, which provides exemptions from Basic Customs Duty on imports under Transferable Duty-Free Import Authorizations (DFIAs). The court upheld the ruling of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), allowing M/s Devam Impex to import “Inshell Walnuts” under the DFIA scheme.

Background of the Case

M/s Devam Impex, a proprietorship firm holding a valid Importer-Exporter Code (IEC), applied for an Advance Ruling under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962. The firm sought clarity on whether “Inshell Walnuts” could be imported under the DFIA scheme by availing the exemption provided in Notification No. 25/2023-Cus. The DFIA was issued in line with Paragraph Nos. 4.24 and 4.26 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and was based on Standard Input Output Norms (SION) E-1 for Assorted Confectionary Products and SION E-5 for Biscuits.

The CAAR ruled in favor of M/s Devam Impex, stating that “Inshell Walnuts” are permissible for import under the DFIA scheme as they fall under the description of “Other Confectionery Ingredients” and “Dietary Fibre” in the DFIA license. The ruling was challenged by the Commissioner of Customs – Kandla, leading to the present appeal before the High Court of Gujarat.

Key Issues Raised in the Appeal 

The appellant, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, argued that the CAAR’s ruling was erroneous for the following reasons:
1. Misclassification of Walnuts: The appellant contended that “Inshell Walnuts” could not be classified as “Dietary Fibre” under SION E-5, as dietary fibre typically refers to cellulose or pectin-based roughage used in biscuit formulation, not high-fat nuts composed of oils and proteins.
2. Absence of Specific Endorsement: The appellant argued that the exemption was granted despite the absence of specific endorsement of the Harmonized System (HS) Code for “Inshell Walnuts” in the DFIA license.
3. Technical Usage: The appellant claimed that the actual technical usage of “Inshell Walnuts” in the exported products was not established, which is a requirement under Paragraph No. 4.12 of the FTP and the conditions of the Notification.
4. Circulars and Public Notices: The appellant referred to DGFT’s Public Notice No. 20/2025-26, which suspended SION norms in the food sector, including SION E-1 and SION E-5, arguing that the legal basis for the CAAR ruling was no longer valid.
Respondent’s Defense

The respondent, represented by Senior Advocate, countered the appellant’s arguments with the following points:
1. Legal Precedent: The respondent relied on the Bombay High Court’s judgment in The Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V vs. VKC Nuts Private Limited (2022), which affirmed that walnuts, including inshell walnuts, fall within the broader classification of “Dietary Fibre” for DFIA entries.
2. Circular Clarifications: The respondent referred to CBIC Circular No. 20/2025-Cus dated July 24, 2025, which clarified that correlation between technical characteristics, quality, or specifications of inputs used in export products and those imported under DFIA is not required, except for inputs specified under Paragraph No. 4.29 of the FTP. “Inshell Walnuts” are not listed under Paragraph No. 4.29, making the correlation unnecessary.
3. Technical Opinion: The respondent highlighted the technical opinion of the Joint Director, Jawahar Customs House Laboratory, which confirmed that walnuts could be used as a source of dietary fibre in the manufacture of biscuits and confectionery.
4. DFIA License Validity: The respondent argued that the DFIA license issued to them permits the import of goods described as “Other Confectionery Ingredients” and “Dietary Fibre,” and the absence of a specific HS Code does not invalidate the import.
High Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The High Court of Gujarat thoroughly analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and referred to various legal precedents, including the Bombay High Court’s judgment in VKC Nuts Private Limited and decisions by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The court noted the following:
1. Legal Precedent: The Bombay High Court had already ruled that “Inshell Walnuts” are covered under the description of “Dietary Fibre” and can be imported duty-free under the DFIA scheme. The technical opinion supporting this classification was not refuted by the appellant.
2. Clarificatory Circular: The CBIC Circular No. 20/2025-Cus clarified that correlation of technical characteristics, quality, and specifications is not required for inputs not listed under Paragraph No. 4.29 of the FTP. This further supported the respondent’s case.
3. Restricted Scope of Appeal: The court emphasized that the scope of appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962, is limited to cases where the ruling of the authority is profoundly illegal, arbitrary, or unreasonable. The court found no such issues in the CAAR’s ruling.
4. Dismissal of Appeal: The court concluded that the proposed questions of law had already been answered by existing legal precedents and dismissed the appeal. The civil application was also disposed of.
Conclusion

The High Court’s judgment in favor of M/s Devam Impex reinforces the importance of legal precedents and clarificatory circulars in resolving disputes related to customs duty exemptions. The case highlights the complexities of interpreting exemption notifications and the significance of technical opinions in determining the classification of imported goods. By upholding the CAAR’s ruling, the court has provided clarity and certainty to importers and exporters operating under the DFIA scheme, ensuring compliance with the Foreign Trade Policy while facilitating trade.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Gujarat High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 31, 2025
Delhi High Court Addresses Aircraft Usage and Customs Duty Exemption Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 30.12.2025

Delhi High Court Addresses Aircraft Usage and Customs Duty Exemption 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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

On March 1, 2023, the High Court of Delhi delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, New Delhi v. M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd. This case revolved around the interpretation of Condition No. 104 of Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, as amended by Notification No. 61/2007-Cus, and the compliance requirements for availing duty exemption on imported aircraft used for non-scheduled (passenger) services.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from an order-in-original dated August 31, 2010, issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The order raised a demand of ₹41.37 crore in customs duty and imposed a penalty of ₹10 crore on M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, the Commissioner directed the confiscation of the imported aircraft, with an option to redeem it by paying a redemption fine of ₹30 crore under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

The crux of the case was the alleged non-compliance by the respondent with Condition No. 104 of the Customs Notification. This condition required the aircraft to be used exclusively for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services. The Customs Authority alleged that the aircraft was used for private purposes, thereby violating the undertaking furnished by the respondent.

Tribunal’s Decision

The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled in favor of M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd on September 8, 2022. The Tribunal found that the aircraft was used in accordance with the permit granted by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and was operated for remuneration. It held that the undertaking to use the aircraft for non-scheduled (passenger) services could only be considered violated if the DGCA determined that the aircraft’s use was not in compliance with the permit issued for such services. Since the DGCA had not found any violation and had renewed the permit annually, the Tribunal concluded that the Customs Authority could not demand duty based on the undertaking.

High Court’s Judgment 

The Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the High Court of Delhi, raising several questions for consideration:
1. Whether the Customs Authority has the jurisdiction to examine compliance with the conditions of the exemption notification.
2. Whether the respondent company had complied with the conditions for availing duty exemption under the notification.
3. Whether a non-scheduled (passenger) operator can carry out charter services.
4. Whether the respondent company was obligated to issue tickets to passengers.
The High Court addressed these questions in detail:

1. Jurisdiction of Customs Authority

The court held that the Customs Authority does have the jurisdiction to examine whether the conditions of the exemption notification were fulfilled. This decision was consistent with the court’s earlier ruling in East India Hotels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Central GST, New Delhi (CUSAA 5/2020).

2. Compliance with Condition No. 104

The court found that the respondent had complied with Condition No. 104 of the notification. It noted that the aircraft was used for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services for remuneration, as required by the condition. The court emphasized that the DGCA had not found any violation of the permit for non-scheduled (passenger) services and had renewed the permit annually. Therefore, the respondent was deemed to have fulfilled the conditions of the exemption notification.

3. Charter Services by Non-Scheduled Operators 

The court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that non-scheduled (passenger) operators are permitted to carry out charter services, provided they comply with the DGCA’s permit conditions.

4. Obligation to Issue Tickets 

The court clarified that the respondent was not obligated to issue tickets to passengers to comply with the definition of non-scheduled (passenger) services. The absence of a published tariff did not imply that the aircraft was used for private purposes.

Final Verdict

The High Court ruled in favor of M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs. The court concluded that the respondent had complied with the conditions of the exemption notification and was entitled to duty exemption. The penalty and redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner were also overturned.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment is a landmark decision in the realm of customs law, particularly concerning the interpretation of exemption notifications and the role of regulatory authorities like the DGCA. It underscores the importance of adhering to the conditions of permits issued by regulatory bodies and clarifies the scope of non-scheduled (passenger) services.

The case also highlights the need for clear guidelines and coordination between different regulatory authorities, such as the Customs Authority and the DGCA, to avoid conflicting interpretations of compliance requirements.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in favor of M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd is a significant victory for the respondent and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. It reinforces the principle that compliance with DGCA permits is a key factor in determining adherence to exemption notifications under customs law. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of regulatory clarity and the need for authorities to work in tandem to ensure fair and consistent enforcement of the law.

Connected Matter

CESTAT Ahmedabad Ruled on Customs Duty Exemptions for Aircraft Importers

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 30, 2025
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Reclassification of I-STAT Analyzer Cartridges
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 30.12.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Reclassification of I-STAT Analyzer Cartridges

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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Sandor Medicaids Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports). This case revolved around the classification of cartridges used in the I-STAT Analyzer, a handheld diagnostic tool, under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The judgment, delivered on December 24, 2025, has set a precedent for the classification of similar products under the Customs Tariff.

Background of the Case

The appellant, M/s Sandor Medicaids Pvt. Ltd., imported cartridges for the I-STAT Analyzer, a diagnostic device used for analyzing various blood parameters. The appellant classified these cartridges under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9027, which covers instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis. This classification allowed the appellant to avail the benefit of Notification No. 25/2005-Customs.

However, the Revenue issued a show-cause notice in April 2023, alleging that the cartridges were misclassified and should instead fall under CTH 3822, which covers diagnostic or laboratory reagents. The Revenue also imposed a differential duty of ₹5,06,61,014, a redemption fine of ₹2,30,00,000, and a penalty equal to the duty amount under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Key Issues in Dispute 

The case raised two primary issues:
1. Classification of the Cartridges: Whether the cartridges used in the I-STAT Analyzer should be classified under CTH 3822 (diagnostic or laboratory reagents) or CTH 9027 (instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis).
2. Limitation Period: Whether the show-cause notice issued by the Revenue was valid, given that it was issued beyond the normal limitation period of two years under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments
1. Classification: The appellant argued that the cartridges are essential accessories for the I-STAT Analyzer and should be classified under CTH 9027. They cited a previous ruling by the CESTAT Regional Bench, Hyderabad (Final Order No. A/30019/2023), which had held that similar cartridges were classifiable under CTH 9027.
2. Limitation: The appellant contended that the show-cause notice was issued beyond the two-year limitation period. They argued that there was no suppression or misdeclaration, as the products were clearly described in the Bills of Entry.
Revenue’s Arguments
1. Classification: The Revenue maintained that the cartridges should be classified under CTH 3822, as they are diagnostic reagents used for medical diagnosis.
2. Limitation: The Revenue argued that the extended limitation period was applicable due to alleged misdeclaration by the appellant.
CESTAT’s Observations and Judgment 

Classification of Cartridges 

The Tribunal analyzed the technical literature of the I-STAT Analyzer and its cartridges. It noted that the cartridges are single-use products containing microfabricated thin-film electrodes or sensors. These cartridges are designed to work exclusively with the I-STAT Analyzer, which reads the results produced by the cartridges. The Tribunal emphasized the following points:
- Functionality: The cartridges do not produce diagnostic results independently. They must be used with the I-STAT Analyzer, which reads the results based on sensors rather than chemical reactions.
- HSN Notes: Chapter Heading 3822 covers diagnostic reagents that provide results based on chemical reactions, such as pregnancy kits and AIDS diagnostic kits. Since the I-STAT cartridges do not function in this manner, they cannot be classified under CTH 3822.
- Accessory Classification: The Tribunal referred to Section Notes 2(b) of Chapter 90, which state that parts or accessories suitable for use solely with a particular machine or apparatus are to be classified with that machine or apparatus. Therefore, the cartridges were rightly classified as accessories of the I-STAT Analyzer under CTH 9027.
Limitation Period

The Tribunal found that the appellant had clearly described the products as accessories of the I-STAT Analyzer under CTH 9027 in the Bills of Entry. The Revenue had previously disputed the classification of the I-STAT Analyzer and its cartridges in a separate case, which was adjudicated by the Hyderabad Tribunal. Since the description of the products was accurate and there was no evidence of suppression or misdeclaration, the Tribunal held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked.

Final Decision

The CESTAT set aside the impugned order dated March 21, 2024, along with its addendum dated July 10, 2024, and ruled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal held that:
1. The I-STAT Analyzer cartridges are rightly classifiable under CTH 9027 as accessories of the analyzer.
2. The extended limitation period was not applicable, as there was no suppression or misdeclaration.
Implications of the Judgment

This landmark judgment has significant implications for the classification of medical devices and their accessories under the Customs Tariff Act. It reinforces the principle that specific descriptions in the Customs Tariff should be preferred over general descriptions, as per Rule 3 of the General Rules of Interpretation. Additionally, it highlights the importance of technical literature and product functionality in determining the correct classification.

The judgment also underscores the importance of adhering to the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and provides clarity on the conditions under which the extended period can be invoked.

Conclusion

The CESTAT’s decision in this case is a crucial development for importers of medical devices and accessories. It provides clarity on the classification of products under the Customs Tariff and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. By emphasizing the importance of technical specifications and the intended use of products, the judgment ensures that importers are not unfairly penalized due to misclassification allegations.

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 30, 2025
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Order Denying Duty Drawback on Activated Mobile Phones

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 29.12.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Order Denying Duty Drawback on Activated Mobile Phones

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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has delivered a significant judgment in favor of M/s Arete Exim, a Rajkot-based proprietary concern, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. The case revolved around the denial of duty drawback claims on the export of activated mobile phones, which were alleged to have been “taken into use” prior to export.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from a consignment exported by M/s Arete Exim in December 2019, which included activated Samsung mobile phones and non-activated Redmi mobile phones. The Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) of the Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, conducted an investigation and concluded that the activated mobile phones were “taken into use” before export, making them ineligible for duty drawback under Rule 3(1) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued in March 2024, proposing recovery of ₹1.57 crore in duty drawback, along with interest and penalties totaling ₹11.6 crore.

Key Arguments and Legal Precedents

During the appeal hearing, the counsel for the appellant, argued that the issue had already been settled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of AIMS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. Union of India & Others. The High Court had ruled that unlocking or activating mobile phones to make them usable in a specific geographical region does not constitute “taken into use” under the Drawback Rules. The court also quashed the CBIC’s clarificatory circular that had formed the basis of the customs department’s claim.

The Delhi High Court’s judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the customs department, thereby affirming the High Court’s decision.

CESTAT’s Observations

The CESTAT Mumbai bench, comprising Hon’ble Judicial Member and Hon’ble Technical Member, thoroughly examined the case records and the precedent set by the Delhi High Court. The bench observed that the activation of mobile phones is merely a configuration process and does not amount to “use” as defined under the Drawback Rules. The tribunal also noted the unreasonable delay of over four years in issuing the show-cause notice, which lacked proper justification.

Final Verdict

In its final order, the CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export). The tribunal ruled that M/s Arete Exim is eligible to retain the duty drawback on the disputed exports made between May 2019 and December 2019, along with consequential benefits. The show-cause notice issued in March 2024 was also quashed due to the unjustifiable delay.

Implications for Exporters

This judgment is a significant win for exporters, as it reinforces the principle that mere activation or configuration of products does not render them “used” under the Drawback Rules. It also highlights the importance of adhering to reasonable timelines in issuing show-cause notices, ensuring fairness in adjudication processes.

Exporters can take solace in the fact that the judiciary continues to uphold their rights and provide clarity on complex regulatory issues. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of challenging unjustified claims and relying on established legal precedents to protect their interests.

Conclusion

The CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in favor of M/s Arete Exim is a milestone in the realm of customs law, providing much-needed clarity on the interpretation of “taken into use” under the Drawback Rules. It underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of exporters and ensuring that regulatory authorities act within the bounds of the law. This judgment will undoubtedly serve as a guiding precedent for similar cases in the future, fostering a fair and transparent trade environment.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

December 29, 2025
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker License
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 29.12.2025

CESTAT Delhi 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 landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has delivered justice to M/s R.K. Logistics, a customs broker, by setting aside the revocation of their license and the imposition of penalties. The case, which revolved around alleged breaches of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018, highlights the importance of due process and the need for thorough investigations before punitive measures are imposed.

Background of the Case

M/s R.K. Logistics, a holder of a customs broker license (R70/DEL/CUS/2016), was accused of breaching regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(n), and 10(q) of the CBLR, 2018. The allegations stemmed from unrecovered excess disbursements under the Rebate of State Levies (RoSL) scheme related to exports by M/s Himratan Exports and M/s Krystafab Enterprises. The licensing authority claimed that the appellant failed to respond to communications regarding the recovery of excess amounts, leading to the revocation of their license and a penalty of ₹50,000.

However, M/s R.K. Logistics denied any connection with the exporters or the impugned exports. They argued that the notice of anomalies was sent to an incorrect address and that the exporters were not their clients. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the shipping bills and foundational documents connecting them to the alleged breaches were not provided, making it impossible to effectively rebut the charges.

The Tribunal’s Observations

The tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Member – Technical), carefully examined the case and found several discrepancies in the licensing authority’s approach. The tribunal noted that:
1. Lack of Evidence: The licensing authority failed to provide verifiable facts or foundational documents connecting M/s R.K. Logistics to the impugned exports and exporters. The shipping bills were not made available to the appellant, and the address used for communication was incorrect.
2. Failure to Investigate: The licensing authority did not conduct necessary investigations to establish the appellant’s connection with the alleged breaches. This lack of due diligence undermined the credibility of the charges.
3. Unsubstantiated Allegations: The tribunal observed that the findings of the licensing authority were based on sketchy facts and lacked merit. The appellant’s clear rebuttal of the allegations was not adequately considered.
The Verdict

In light of the insufficient evidence and procedural lapses, the tribunal concluded that the impugned order was devoid of reason and merit. The revocation of the customs broker license and the imposition of penalties were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi.

Acknowledgment of Legal Representation 

The tribunal also commended the efforts of Advocate, who was appointed as amicus curiae, and Advocate, for their dedicated and thorough representation of the appellant. Their meticulous preparation and arguments on jurisdictional, legal, and factual aspects played a pivotal role in ensuring justice was served.

Conclusion

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to due process and conducting thorough investigations before imposing punitive measures. The decision by CESTAT New Delhi not only upholds the principles of justice and equity but also reinforces the need for accountability and fairness in regulatory proceedings. M/s R.K. Logistics has emerged victorious, and this judgment sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 29, 2025
Delhi High Court Addresses Import Policy Restrictions on Sandalwood

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 27.12.2025

Delhi High Court Addresses Import Policy Restrictions on Sandalwood

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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

On September 25, 2025, the Delhi High Court, under the bench of Hon’ble Justice, delivered a significant order in the case of W.P. (C) 14781/2025, filed by Appellant, a small-scale trader engaged in the import and processing of sandalwood. The case revolved around the petitioner’s challenge to the prevailing import policy on sandalwood, which imposes a quantitative ceiling of 5,000 cubic meters (cum) as prescribed under the policy and circulars dated April 7, 2006, and December 31, 2007.

Background of the Case

The petitioner argued that the import restrictions on sandalwood are outdated and have outlived their intended purpose. These restrictions, according to the petitioner, violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which ensures the freedom to practice any profession or carry out any occupation, trade, or business.

The petitioner highlighted the adverse impact of the ceiling limit on the unorganized sector, particularly small-scale artisans who rely on sandalwood for manufacturing handicrafts and perfumery products. The scarcity of sandalwood due to these restrictions has created challenges for domestic production, which is insufficient to meet the growing demand.

Additionally, the petitioner contended that the quantitative ceiling contradicts the second proviso to Section 9A(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, further emphasizing the need for policy revision.

Court’s Observations and Directions

After hearing the arguments, the Delhi High Court took a balanced approach to address the concerns raised by the petitioner. The court directed that the petition be treated as a representation by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), which is respondent no. 2 in the case. The DGFT was instructed to consider the petitioner’s grievances and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.

The court also emphasized the importance of consulting relevant stakeholders, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, and other concerned parties, before making a decision. This ensures that the issue is addressed comprehensively, taking into account environmental, economic, and social factors.

The court mandated that the representation be disposed of through a speaking order within 12 weeks from the date of the order, ensuring a timely resolution of the matter.

Implications of the Order

This order is a significant step towards addressing the challenges faced by small-scale traders and artisans who depend on sandalwood for their livelihood. By directing the DGFT to review the import policy, the court has paved the way for a potential revision of the quantitative ceiling, which could alleviate the scarcity of sandalwood and support the unorganized sector.

The decision also highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing economic interests with environmental concerns. By involving the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change in the decision-making process, the court has ensured that any policy changes will be made with due consideration to sustainability and ecological preservation.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s order in this case underscores the importance of revisiting outdated policies that hinder economic growth and impact livelihoods. It also sets a precedent for addressing similar issues in other sectors where restrictive policies may be causing unintended consequences. As the DGFT reviews the representation and consults relevant stakeholders, it is hoped that the outcome will be a more balanced and progressive import policy that supports small-scale traders and artisans while ensuring the sustainable use of natural resources.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

December 27, 2025
CESTAT Delhi Overturns Order on Alleged Misdeclaration and Under-Valuation by Barfo Impex
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 27.12.2025

CESTAT Delhi Overturns Order on Alleged Misdeclaration and Under-Valuation by Barfo Impex

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) in New Delhi recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Barfo Impex, addressing critical issues related to customs valuation, alleged misdeclaration, and principles of natural justice. This blog delves into the details of the case, the arguments presented, and the final decision by the Tribunal.

Case Overview

The case involved two appeals filed by M/s Barfo Impex against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The appeals were related to allegations of misdeclaration and under-valuation of imported automobile parts. The goods in question were imported under two Bills of Entry—No. 3494446 dated 05.10.2017 and No. 4041988 dated 17.11.2017. The customs authorities alleged that the appellant had failed to declare the brand names of the imported goods, leading to accusations of intentional suppression, misdeclaration, and under-valuation.

Key Allegations
1. Misdeclaration of Brand Names: The customs authorities claimed that the appellant had imported branded automobile parts but failed to declare the brand names in the Bills of Entry. This was considered an intentional act of suppression.
2. Under-Valuation of Goods: The authorities alleged that the declared transaction value of the goods was not accurate and re-determined the value under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR, 2007).
3. Confiscation and Penalties: The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the goods, imposed penalties under Sections 114A and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, and demanded differential duty along with applicable interest.
Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant, represented by Advocate, presented the following arguments:
1. Unbranded Goods: The appellant argued that the goods were either unbranded or misbranded, as stated by the proprietor, Shri Saurabh Jain, in his statement. The markings on the packages were allegedly false and intended to make the goods more marketable in India.
2. No Evidence of Suppression: The appellant contended that there was no evidence to prove intentional suppression or under-valuation. The declared transaction value was accurate, and no additional payments were made to the overseas supplier beyond the invoice value.
3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant highlighted that no show cause notice was issued, and the adjudicating authority failed to provide a proper opportunity to defend against the allegations.
4. Improper Valuation Process: The appellant argued that the valuation of goods was not conducted sequentially as per Rules 4 to 9 of the CVR, 2007. The adjudicating authority directly applied Rule 7 without considering other rules, which was not tenable.
Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent, represented by Authorized Representative, defended the findings of the adjudicating authority. The respondent argued that the voluntary payment made by the appellant was sufficient evidence of manipulation and under-valuation. The department relied on previous judgments to support its case and requested the Tribunal to dismiss the appeals.

Tribunal’s Observations and Decision 

After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal made the following observations:
1. No Evidence of Branding: The Tribunal found that the department failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the goods were branded. Investigations revealed that many of the goods were counterfeit or unbranded, and the department did not conduct proper verification with the respective brand owners.
2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The Tribunal noted that the appellant had requested a written show cause notice, but none was issued. This was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to defend against the allegations.
3. Improper Valuation: The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority did not follow the prescribed sequential process for valuation under the CVR, 2007. The rejection of the transaction value and the subsequent re-determination were found to be unsustainable.
4. No Evidence of Under-Valuation: The Tribunal held that the department failed to provide evidence that the declared transaction value did not reflect the true value of the goods. The declared value should have been accepted in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
5. Violation of Mandatory Timelines: The Tribunal highlighted that the adjudicating authority failed to adhere to the mandatory timelines for issuing a show cause notice and passing the adjudication order, further violating the principles of natural justice.
Final Judgment

The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 02.03.2022 and allowed both appeals filed by M/s Barfo Impex. The Tribunal held that the allegations of misdeclaration and under-valuation were not substantiated by evidence, and the principles of natural justice were violated. Consequently, the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and demand for differential duty were deemed unsustainable.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Evidence: The case highlights the necessity for customs authorities to provide concrete evidence when alleging misdeclaration or under-valuation.
2. Adherence to Valuation Rules: The judgment underscores the importance of following the sequential process outlined in the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, for determining the value of imported goods.
3. Principles of Natural Justice: The Tribunal emphasized that the failure to issue a show cause notice and provide a fair opportunity to the appellant to defend against allegations is a violation of natural justice.
4. Transaction Value: The decision reaffirms the principle that the declared transaction value should be accepted unless there is clear evidence to prove otherwise.
Conclusion

The CESTAT’s judgment in the case of M/s Barfo Impex serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal procedures and principles in customs adjudication. It also highlights the need for customs authorities to substantiate their claims with evidence and follow the prescribed rules for valuation. This case sets a precedent for importers and customs officials alike, ensuring that justice is served in accordance with the law.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 27, 2025
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief in Customs Duty Exemption for ELISA Kits
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 26.12.2025

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief in Customs Duty Exemption for ELISA Kits

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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Delhi High Court has recently issued an interim relief in a case that could have significant implications for businesses dealing with specialized testing kits. The case, Adinath Veterinary Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, revolves around the denial of customs duty exemption for ELISA kits used for food and animal testing. This exemption is claimed under a notification that the appellant argues should apply to these kits.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Adinath Veterinary Products Pvt. Ltd., filed the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8th July 2025. The Tribunal had upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s earlier decision dated 25th May 2022, which refused the exemption benefit for ELISA kits. The appellant contends that these kits are exempted from customs duty under the relevant exemption notification, which is critical for their operations in food and animal testing.

The case raises broader questions about the interpretation of exemption notifications and their applicability to specialized products like ELISA kits. The appellant has also indicated that additional grounds will be raised during the final hearing, which could further clarify the legal position on this matter.

Proceedings in the Delhi High Court 

The matter was heard on 22nd December 2025 by a bench comprising Justice. The hearing was conducted in hybrid mode, reflecting the Court’s adoption of modern practices to ensure accessibility and efficiency.

During the proceedings, the Court noted that similar cases are already pending before it, including:
1. Ashish Bhandari vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (CUSAA 36/2025)
2. Ilishan Biotech (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Appeal (CUSAA 37/2025)
Given the overlap in issues, the Court decided to list the present case alongside these matters for a consolidated hearing on 14th January 2026. This approach ensures consistency in judicial decisions and allows for a comprehensive examination of the legal questions involved.

Interim Relief Granted

In a significant interim order, the Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against the appellant until the matter is resolved. This relief provides temporary protection to the appellant, allowing them to continue their operations without the immediate threat of enforcement actions.

Additionally, the Court issued directions for the filing of pleadings. The respondent has been asked to submit a counter affidavit within two weeks, and the appellant is required to file a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. These submissions will play a crucial role in shaping the arguments for the final hearing.

Implications of the Case

This case is not just about one company’s claim for customs duty exemption; it has broader implications for industries that rely on specialized testing kits like ELISA kits. These kits are essential for ensuring food safety and conducting animal testing, both of which are critical for public health and regulatory compliance.

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how exemption notifications are interpreted and applied to similar products. If the appellant succeeds, it could pave the way for other companies to claim similar exemptions, potentially reducing costs and encouraging innovation in the field of veterinary and food testing.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to grant interim relief in this case is a positive development for Adinath Veterinary Products Pvt. Ltd. and other stakeholders in the industry. As the case progresses, it will be interesting to see how the Court addresses the legal and regulatory issues surrounding customs duty exemptions for specialized products.

The next hearing is scheduled for 14th January 2026, and all eyes will be on the Court as it deliberates on this important matter.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 26, 2025