ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Facebook

  • “Decoding Customs Classification: Advance Ruling on Transceiver Modules and Duty Exemptions”

    “Decoding Customs Classification: Advance Ruling on Transceiver Modules and Duty Exemptions”

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.10.2025

    “Decoding Customs Classification: Advance Ruling on Transceiver Modules and Duty Exemptions”

    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.

    ​​ ​​

    Case Summary

    The case pertains to the classification of transceiver modules (Small Form-Factor Pluggable (SFP), QSFP, CFP, etc.) ​ imported by M/s Hewlett-Packard Enterprise India Private Ltd. (HPE) under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ The applicant sought clarity on whether these modules should be classified under tariff item 8517 62 90 (machines for reception, conversion, and transmission of data) or 8517 79 90 (parts of apparatus under heading 8517). ​ Additionally, the applicant requested confirmation of eligibility for concessional or nil basic customs duty (BCD) under Notification No. ​ 57/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017. ​

    Submissions Made by the Parties ​

    Applicant’s Submissions ​

    1. Product Description:
      • Transceiver modules are compact, hot-pluggable devices inserted into networking equipment (e.g., switches, routers). ​
      • They act as interfaces between networking equipment and copper/fiber optic cables but do not function independently. ​
      • Modules are proprietary to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and are not cross-compatible. ​
    2. Classification Argument:
      • The modules do not perform reception, conversion, and transmission independently, as required under 8517 62 90. ​
      • They are integral components of networking equipment and should be classified as “parts” under 8517 79 90. ​
    3. Judicial Precedents:
      • Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. (CESTAT & Supreme Court): Transceivers classified under 8517 79 90. ​
      • IBM India Pvt. ​ Ltd. (CESTAT): Similar modules classified under 8517 79 90. ​
      • Nokia Solutions (Delhi High Court): Overruled CAAR’s classification under 8517 62 90 and upheld classification under 8517 79 90. ​
    4. Eligibility for Duty Exemption:
      • Under Serial No. ​ 5 of Notification No. ​ 57/2017, goods classified under 8517 79 90 are eligible for nil BCD unless they are parts of cellular mobile phones or wrist wearable devices, which the transceivers are not. ​
    5. Maintainability of Application:
      • The applicant argued that the term “same question” under Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act refers to identical issues in the applicant’s own case, not similar issues decided in other cases. ​

    Department’s Submissions:

    • No comments were received from the concerned Commissionerate despite multiple communications and opportunities to attend the personal hearing. ​

    Legal Principles Adopted

    1. Test for Classification as “Parts”:
      • Based on the Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) judgment, two questions were examined:
        • Does the item have a separate identifiable function distinct from the main machine? ​
        • Is the item capable of operating independently of the main machine? ​
      • If both answers are negative, the item is classified as a “part.” ​
    2. HSN Explanatory Notes:
      • Sub-heading 8517 62 covers machines capable of independent reception, conversion, and transmission of data. ​
      • Items that operate only as components of host apparatus are classified as “parts” under 8517 79. ​
    3. Judicial Precedents:
      • Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd., IBM India Pvt. ​ Ltd., and Nokia Solutions rulings consistently classified transceivers under 8517 79 90. ​

    Citations Referred

    1. Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd.:
      • CESTAT & Supreme Court classified transceivers as “parts” under 8517 79 90. ​
    2. IBM India Pvt. ​ Ltd.:
      • CESTAT upheld classification under 8517 79 90 and extended duty exemption under Notification No. ​ 57/2017.
    3. Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. ​ Ltd.:
      • Delhi High Court overruled CAAR’s classification under 8517 62 90 and affirmed classification under 8517 79 90. ​
    4. Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import):
      • Established the test for determining whether an item is a “part.” ​

    Policy Matter Referred

    1. Notification No. 57/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017:
      • Serial No. ​ 5 prescribes nil BCD for goods under 8517 79 90, excluding parts of cellular mobile phones and wrist wearable devices. ​
      • The applicant argued that transceivers are not parts of excluded items and are eligible for nil BCD. ​

    Order Issued by the Authority

    1. Classification:
      • The transceiver modules, including SFP/SFP+, QSFP/QSFP-DD, CFP/CFP2, are classifiable under 8517 79 90 as “Other parts” of apparatus under heading 8517. ​
    2. Duty Exemption:
      • The goods are eligible for nil BCD under Serial No. ​ 5 of Notification No. ​ 57/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017, as they are not parts of cellular mobile phones or wrist wearable devices. ​
    3. Maintainability:
      • The application was deemed maintainable as the goods in question were not identical to those in previously decided cases, and the applicant’s unique factual matrix warranted independent examination. ​

    Conclusion

    The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the applicant, confirming the classification of transceiver modules under 8517 79 90 and their eligibility for nil BCD under Notification No. ​ 57/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017. ​ Judicial precedents and established legal principles were heavily relied upon to reach the decision.

    Source: Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, New Delhi Bench, CBIC, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    CAAR New Delhi RulingDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Advance Ruling on Classification of Portable Computers: A Legal Insight into Customs Tariff Rulings

    Advance Ruling on Classification of Portable Computers: A Legal Insight into Customs Tariff Rulings

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.10.2025

    Advance Ruling on Classification of Portable Computers: A Legal Insight into Customs Tariff Rulings

    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.

    ​​ ​​

    Case Summary:

    The case involves M/s PV Lumens India Pvt. ​ Ltd., which filed an application for advance ruling under Section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking classification of their imported “Portable Computers” (Mobile Computers) under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 84713090 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ The applicant sought confirmation that the devices are classified as “Automatic Data Processing Machines” (ADP Machines) under Heading 8471. ​

    Submissions by the Applicant: ​

    1. Nature of Goods:
      • The devices are handheld portable computers primarily used for barcode scanning and real-time data processing to enhance operational efficiency in inventory management, last-mile delivery, invoicing, etc. ​
      • The devices combine the computing power of a laptop and the scanning functionality of a barcode scanner in a single wireless device. ​
      • The devices are available in variants with and without SIM card connectivity, with cellular connectivity being supplementary and not integral to their primary function. ​
    2. Classification Argument: ​
      • The devices meet all the criteria outlined in Chapter Note 6(A) to Chapter 84, qualifying them as ADP Machines under Heading 8471. ​
      • Cellular connectivity is an ancillary feature and does not alter the principal function of the devices, which is data processing and barcode scanning. ​
      • The devices are not smartphones under Heading 8517, as they are not primarily telephones for cellular networks. ​
    3. Citations:
      • The applicant referred to previous rulings that classified similar products under CTI 84713090, including:
        • Delmon Solutions Private Limited (CAAR/Mum/ARC/25/2024) ​
        • Senate Solutions Private Limited (2023 (10) TMI 74) ​
        • Brightpoint India Pvt. ​ Ltd. (CAAR/Mum/ARC/32/2022) ​
        • Rashi Peripherals Private Limited (2022 (8) TMI 1393) ​
        • Mustek Technologies Private Limited (CAAR/Mum/ARC/21/2025-26) ​
    4. Policy Reference:
      • CBIC Circular No. ​ 20/2013 dated 14.05.2013, which clarified the classification of “Tablet Computers” under Heading 8471, stating that their principal function is data processing, and cellular connectivity is supplementary. ​

    Submissions by the Jurisdictional Commissionerate: ​

    1. Classification Argument: ​
      • The jurisdictional commissionerate argued that the devices are similar to smartphones and should be classified under CTI 85171300 (Smartphones) based on Note 5 to Chapter 85, which defines smartphones as telephones for cellular networks equipped with mobile operating systems capable of performing ADP functions. ​
    2. Policy Reference:
      • The commissionerate referred to CBIC Circular No. ​ 20/2013, stating that devices smaller than “pocket-size” dimensions (170 mm x 100 mm x 45 mm) should be classified under Heading 8517.

    Legal Principles Adopted:

    1. General Rules of Interpretation (GRI): ​
      • Rule 1 of GRI was applied to determine classification based on the terms of the headings and relevant Section or Chapter Notes. ​
      • Section Note 3 to Section XVI was considered, which states that composite machines performing multiple functions should be classified based on their principal function. ​
    2. Chapter Note 6(A) to Chapter 84:
      • The authority examined whether the devices met the criteria for ADP Machines under Note 6(A), which includes storing programs, being freely programmable, performing arithmetical computations, and executing processing programs without human intervention. ​
    3. HSN Explanatory Notes: ​
      • The authority referred to HSN Explanatory Notes for Heading 8471, which further clarified the definition and scope of ADP Machines. ​
    4. CBIC Circular No. ​ 20/2013: ​
      • The circular was used to support the argument that devices with cellular connectivity can still be classified under Heading 8471 if their principal function is data processing. ​

    Order Issued by the Authority: ​ The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, ruled that the “Portable Computers” (Mobile Computers) listed in Table-I of the application are classifiable under CTI 84713090 (Portable automatic data-processing machines, weighing not more than 10 kg, consisting of at least a central processing unit, a keyboard, and a displayβ€”Others) of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ The authority rejected the jurisdictional commissionerate’s argument for classification under Heading 8517, stating that the principal function of the devices is automatic data processing, not telephony. ​ Cellular connectivity is considered supplementary and does not alter the fundamental character of the devices as ADP Machines.

    Source: Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai Bench, CBIC, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    CAAR Mumbai RulingDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CBIC Notifies Amendments to Entrustment of Powers under Section 110

    CBIC Notifies Amendments to Entrustment of Powers under Section 110

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.10.2025

    CBIC Notifies Amendments to Entrustment of Powers under Section 110

    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 1, 2025, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issued Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T. ​), introducing amendments to the earlier notification [No. ​ 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​]. This notification, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), brings significant changes to the Customs Act, 1962, particularly concerning Section 110 and its sub-sections. In this blog, we will delve into the details of the notification, explore the relevant sections of the Customs Act, and discuss case law related to Section 110.

    Key Highlights of Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​

    The notification amends the principal notification [No. ​ 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​], which was originally published on March 31, 2022, and subsequently amended multiple times. ​ The latest amendments are as follows:

    1. Amendments to Serial Number 6:
      • In column (3), item (vi) and its entries have been substituted with: “(vi) Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110”. ​
    2. Amendments to Serial Number 7:
      • In column (3), item (xiv) and its entries have been substituted with: “(xiv) Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110”. ​

    These changes clarify the applicability of specific sub-sections of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with the seizure of goods, documents, and things. ​

    Comparative Table: Notification No. 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​ vs Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​

    AspectNotification No. 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​
    Date of Notification ​March 31, 2022 ​October 1, 2025 ​
    PurposeOriginal notification issued to define the powers and functions of customs officers under the Customs Act.Amends specific provisions of Notification No. ​ 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​ to update the applicability of Section 110.
    Amendments to Serial No. ​ 6Item (vi) referred to certain sub-sections of Section 110. ​Item (vi) updated to include Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110. ​
    Amendments to Serial No. ​ 7Item (xiv) referred to certain sub-sections of Section 110. ​Item (xiv) updated to include Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110. ​
    Focus AreaGeneral provisions related to customs officers and their powers.Specific focus on the seizure provisions under Section 110 and the role of proper officers. ​
    Referenced SectionsSections 3, 4, 5, and 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.Sections 3, 4, 5, and updated sub-sections of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    Effective DateMarch 31, 2022 ​October 1, 2025 ​
    Subsequent AmendmentsAmended via notifications S.O. ​ 1601(E) (April 4, 2022), S.O. ​ 3186(E) (July 14, 2022), and S.O. ​ 5773(E) (December 10, 2022). ​Latest amendment introduced through Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T. ​).

    Circular No. ​ 07/2022-Customs

    The Circular No. ​ 07/2022-Customs, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, on March 31, 2022, outlines amendments to the Customs Act, 1962, introduced through the Finance Act, 2022. ​ Key changes include modifications to Section 2(34) for assigning functions to customs officers, inclusion of officers from DRI, Audit, and Preventive formations under Section 3, and the insertion of new sub-sections (1A), (1B), (4), and (5) under Section 5 to clarify the assignment of functions and jurisdiction. A new Section 110AA has been added to ensure that the original officer retains jurisdiction for further actions after inquiries or audits.

    Understanding Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 ​

    Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, outlines the provisions related to the seizure of goods, documents, and other items by customs authorities. The relevant sub-sections are as follows:

    • Sub-section (1): Empowers a proper officer to seize goods, documents, or things if there is a reasonable belief that they are liable for confiscation under the Customs Act.
    • Sub-section (3): Specifies the procedure for issuing a notice to the owner of the seized goods, requiring them to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated.
    • Sub-section (5): Provides the conditions under which seized goods may be released provisionally to the owner, subject to furnishing a bond or security.

    These provisions ensure that customs authorities can take necessary action against goods suspected of violating customs laws while safeguarding the rights of the owners.

    Sub-section (34) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 ​

    Sub-section (34) of Section 2 defines the term “proper officer”. It states: “Proper officer”, in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs.”

    This definition is crucial as it determines the authority of customs officers to act under various provisions of the Customs Act, including Section 110.

    Overview of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Customs Act, 1962

    1. Section 3: Officers of Customs This section specifies the classes of officers of customs, including Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Joint Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, and other officers. It establishes the hierarchy and roles within the customs department.
    2. Section 4: Appointment of Officers of Customs Under this section, the Central Government is empowered to appoint officers of customs. It also allows the government to authorize certain officers to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of customs officers.
    3. Section 5: Powers of Officers of Customs ​ Section 5 outlines the powers of customs officers, which include exercising authority under the Customs Act. ​ Sub-sections (1A), (4), and (5) of this section were referenced in the recent notification, emphasizing the delegation of powers to proper officers for specific functions. ​

    Case Law Related to Section 110: Proper Officer and Seizure of Goods

    In M/s. Nikom Copper and Conductors Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, the petitioner challenged the seizure of imported copper goods by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), alleging the seizure was illegal and lacked “reason to believe” as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act. ​ Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the seizure memo and declaring the cancellation of amendments to the bills of entry invalid due to procedural violations. The Court ordered the release of the goods to the petitioner upon payment of duties and completion of formalities. ​

    Conclusion

    The recent amendments introduced by Notification No. ​ 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​ aim to streamline the application of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, by specifying the relevant sub-sections. ​ These changes reinforce the role of proper officers in ensuring compliance with customs laws while safeguarding the rights of individuals. Additionally, the provisions under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Customs Act provide a robust framework for the appointment and empowerment of customs officers.​

    Source: CBIC, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • “Decoding Classification: The Case of Samsung’s Wired Remote Controllers Under Customs Tariff Act”

    “Decoding Classification: The Case of Samsung’s Wired Remote Controllers Under Customs Tariff Act”

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.10.2025

    “Decoding Classification: The Case of Samsung’s Wired Remote Controllers Under Customs Tariff Act”

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

    Case Summary: The case involves Samsung India Electronics Private Limited seeking an advance ruling on the classification of “Wired Remote Controllers” for air-conditioning systems under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ The applicant proposed classification under Heading 8537 10 90 as “Electrical Control Console,” while the Department argued for classification under Heading 8415 90 00 as “Parts” of air-conditioning machines.

    Source: Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, New Delhi Bench, CBIC, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • “Advance Ruling Authority- Classification of Forklift Drive Train as Essential Component under Customs Tariff Act, 1975”

    “Advance Ruling Authority- Classification of Forklift Drive Train as Essential Component under Customs Tariff Act, 1975”

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.10.2025

    “Advance Ruling Authority- Classification of Forklift Drive Train as Essential Component under Customs Tariff Act, 1975” ​

    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.

    ​​ ​​

    Case Summary: The case pertains to M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, which filed an application with the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, seeking an advance ruling on the classification of “Forklift Drive Train (Parts of Forklift)” under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ The applicant proposed that the subject goods be classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 84312010, which covers “Parts of Forklift Trucks.” ​ The ruling was issued on October 15, 2025, under Ruling No. ​ CAAR/Mum/ARC/93/2025.

    Source: Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai Bench, CBIC, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India

    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 Chennai Allows Refund Claim Despite Procedural Lapse in Compliance with Customs Notification

    CESTAT Chennai Allows Refund Claim Despite Procedural Lapse in Compliance with Customs Notification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.10.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Allows Refund Claim Despite Procedural Lapse in Compliance with 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.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, recently addressed a dispute involving M/s. ​ N.R. Colours Ltd. and the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. ​The case revolved around the rejection of a refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Customs. The Tribunal’s decision sheds light on the interpretation of procedural compliance and the broader principles of justice in refund claims.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. N.R. Colours Ltd. filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,10,795/- on February 26, 2014, under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, which allows for the refund of 4% SAD paid on imported goods, provided certain conditions are met. The claim pertained to the import of goods such as “Pentacrythritol Mono Grade, MHEC, and Re-dispersable Emulsion Powder” under seven bills of entry. ​

    The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and subsequently by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) on the grounds that the sales invoices submitted by the appellant did not contain the mandatory endorsement as required under para 2(b) of the notification. ​ This endorsement states that “no credit of Additional Duty of Customs shall be admissible” on the goods sold.

    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 Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Over Invoicing

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Over Invoicing

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.10.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Over Invoicing

    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), Allahabad, has delivered justice to exporters M/s Shree Venkateswara Exports and M/s Surya Jyoti Global Logistics by setting aside penalties and redemption fines imposed under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around allegations of over-invoicing export goods to claim inadmissible drawback benefits, but the Tribunal found no substantial evidence to support these claims. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute originated from the export of readymade garments by M/s Shree Venkateswara Exports through Customs Broker M/s Surya Jyoti Global Logistics. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the goods were overvalued to claim excessive drawback benefits. ​ Following investigations, the goods were confiscated, and penalties totaling Rs. ​ 22,21,267/- were imposed on both appellants, along with a redemption fine of Rs. ​ 66,63,800/-. The appellants challenged the Order-in-Original passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida, citing procedural lapses, lack of evidence, and violation of natural justice.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Rejects Arbitrary Market Enquiry in Export Drawback

    Source: CESTAT Allahabad

    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- Royalty Payments Not Includible in Transaction Value of Imported Goods

    CESTAT Delhi- Royalty Payments Not Includible in Transaction Value of Imported Goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.10.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Royalty Payments Not Includible in Transaction Value of Imported 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.

    On October 14, 2025, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. ​ Ericsson India Private Limited vs. Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. ​ This decision, which involved three appeals (Customs Appeal Nos. 50439, 50440, and 50441 of 2021), has far-reaching implications for the inclusion of royalty payments in the transaction value of imported goods under customs law.

    Background of the Case

    Ericsson India, a wholly-owned subsidiary of LM Ericsson Sweden, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of telecom equipment such as Radio Base Stations, Mobile Switching Centers, and Base Station Controllers. ​ The company imports components from its related foreign supplier, Ericsson Sweden, and pays royalties to LM Ericsson Sweden for technical know-how under a Technical Co-Operation Agreement. ​ The dispute arose when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the royalty payments made by Ericsson India to LM Ericsson Sweden should be included in the transaction value of the imported components under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of the Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. ​ The DRI also imposed penalties on Ericsson India and two of its executives, Tej Nirmal Singh and Bharat Bandhu, under the Customs Act, 1962.

    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 Mumbai Sets Aside Penalty on Courier Company

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Penalty on Courier Company

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Penalty on Courier Company

    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 appeals filed by Bombino Express Pvt. ​ Ltd. and its Director, against penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone III. ​ This decision, pronounced on October 7, 2025, marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of penal provisions under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from allegations of mis-declaration and undervaluation of goods imported through courier mode by M/s. ​ Smashing Traders Pvt. ​ Ltd., facilitated by Bombino Express Pvt. ​ Ltd. Investigations revealed discrepancies between the declared value of goods and their actual value, leading to penalties being imposed on Bombino Express Pvt. ​ Ltd. and Appellant under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The penalties were based on claims that Bombino Express and Appellant were complicit in the smuggling activities orchestrated by M/s. ​ Smashing Traders Pvt. ​ Ltd. and its mastermind, Mr. Kuo Leong. ​ The authorities alleged that Bombino Express knowingly facilitated the clearance of undervalued goods and that Appellant was involved in the procurement and dispatch of these goods.

    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 Delhi Sets Aside Customs Duty Demand Over DFIA License Misuse Allegations

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

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 14.10.2025

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

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

    In a significant legal development, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a landmark judgment on October 13, 2025, in favor of M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. Ltd. and its Director. ​ The case revolved around the alleged misuse of Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) licenses for importing epoxy resin under the guise of impregnating resin. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from a show-cause notice (SCN) issued by the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on January 29, 2015. The SCN alleged that M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. ​ Ltd. had fraudulently imported epoxy resin under DFIA licenses issued to Kanpur-based leather exporters. ​ The DRI claimed that the DFIA licenses permitted the import of impregnating resin, not epoxy resin, and accused the importer of misdeclaring the goods to claim duty exemptions under Notification No. ​ 98/2009-Customs dated September 11, 2009. ​

    The Joint Commissioner upheld the allegations in the SCN, confirming a demand of differential duty amounting to β‚Ή33,29,154, along with applicable interest and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) later upheld this decision, leading the appellants to file an appeal with the CESTAT.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com