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

  • CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Duty Demand and Penalties in Alleged Undervaluation

    CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Duty Demand and Penalties in Alleged Undervaluation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Duty Demand and Penalties in Alleged Undervaluation​ ​ ​ Β 

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside the demand for differential duty and penalties imposed on M/s Swati Processors Pvt Ltd and its authorized signatory, Appellant, in connection with alleged undervaluation of imported goods. The case, which revolved around the import of “100% Viscose Rayon Embroidery Thread” during the period October 2005 to March 2006, has been a subject of contention for several years. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellants had filed four bills of entry for the clearance of imported goods through Chennai Seaport and Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nava Sheva Port. ​ Following an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad, allegations of undervaluation and evasion of customs duty surfaced. ​ A show cause notice was issued in April 2008, proposing rejection of the declared value, redetermination of the same, and demand for differential duty along with penalties under Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. ​ 2,26,928/- and imposed penalties on both appellants. ​ However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the confiscation and redemption fine but upheld the duty demand and penalties. ​ Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Tribunal.

    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 Allows SAD Refund Despite Procedural Lapse

    CESTAT Chennai Allows SAD Refund Despite Procedural Lapse

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 12.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Allows SAD Refund Despite Procedural Lapse​ ​

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside the rejection of refund claims filed by M/s. Palfinger Cranes India Pvt. ​ Ltd. for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. ​ The decision, delivered on September 11, 2025, highlights the importance of substantive compliance over procedural lapses in availing tax benefits under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Palfinger Cranes India Pvt. ​ Ltd. filed refund claims amounting to Rs. ​ 1,92,608/- and Rs. ​ 2,00,864/- for SAD paid on crane and crane parts imported under Bills of Entry dated May 18, 2012, and November 6, 2012. ​ The claims were made in accordance with Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Cus, which allows refund of SAD paid on imported goods if VAT or CST is paid on subsequent sales. ​ However, the claims were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and later by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) due to non-compliance with condition 2(b) of the notification, which mandates an endorsement on sales invoices stating that “no cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of 4% CVD.”

    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

  • Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods

    Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 12.09.2025

    Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods​ ​ ​ Β 

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

    In a landmark judgment delivered on May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of M/s Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly known as M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Limited), directing the Union of India and its departments to refund amounts covered by bank guarantees encashed by the customs department. The judgment, authored by Justice, sets a significant precedent in the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and the interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute originated in 2002 when M/s M.P. ​ Glychem Industries Limited (later merged with Ruchi Soya Industries Limited) imported crude degummed soybean oil and filed a bill of entry for clearance. ​ The customs department demanded higher customs duty based on a tariff value fixed under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act. ​ The appellant contended that the notification fixing the tariff value was not in effect at the time of import, and duty should be assessed under Section 14(1) instead. ​

    To resolve the impasse, the Gujarat High Court directed the appellant to furnish bank guarantees for the differential duty amounts, allowing the goods to be cleared. ​ Subsequently, the appellant challenged the validity of the notification, but the High Court dismissed the writ petitions in 2012. ​ Following this, the customs department encashed the bank guarantees in 2013, even as the appellant’s appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. ​ In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant in the case of Union of India vs. Param Industries Limited, holding that the notification fixing the tariff value was not offered for sale at the time of import, making the customs department’s demand for differential duty unlawful.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Certificates of Origin for Gold and Diamond Imports from Thailand​

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Certificates of Origin for Gold and Diamond Imports from Thailand​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Certificates of Origin for Gold and Diamond Imports from Thailand​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a landmark judgment addressing the contentious issue of preferential duty claims on imports of gold and diamond-studded jewelry from Thailand. This decision, pronounced on August 29, 2023, has significant implications for importers, customs authorities, and international trade agreements.

    Background of the Case

    The appeals arose from disputes over the validity of preferential duty claims under Notification No. ​ 85/2004-Cus dated August 31, 2004, which provides reduced customs duty rates for goods originating from Thailand. The importers had furnished Certificates of Origin (COO) issued by the designated authority in Thailand to claim these benefits. ​ However, customs authorities questioned the authenticity of these certificates, alleging non-compliance with the “value addition” requirement stipulated under the Interim Rules of Origin. ​

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted investigations, leading to orders demanding differential duties and imposing penalties under Sections 28, 114A, and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The importers challenged these orders, arguing that the certificates were valid and issued by the competent authority in Thailand.

    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 Chennai Set Aside Duty Demand on Misrepresented Licenses

    CESTAT Chennai Set Aside Duty Demand on Misrepresented Licenses

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Set Aside Duty Demand on Misrepresented Licenses​ ​ ​ Β 

    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), Chennai, has shed light on the legal nuances surrounding duty-free import licenses obtained through misrepresentation. The case, M/s. ​ M.R. & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport – Export), highlights the distinction between fraudulent licenses and licenses obtained by misrepresentation, offering clarity on the rights of innocent transferee importers.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s. ​ M.R. & Co., imported 13,940 kilograms of raw silk yarn valued at Rs. ​ 1,64,31,703/- duty-free using Duty-Free Replenishment Scheme (DFRC) licenses procured from M/s. ​ Shree Kuberappa & Sons. ​ Investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) revealed that the original exporter, M/s. ​ Shree Kuberappa & Sons, had misrepresented facts to obtain these licenses fraudulently. ​ Consequently, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) canceled the licenses in January 2010, years after the imports were made. ​

    The Customs authorities issued a Show Cause Notice to M/s. M.R. & Co., demanding duty of Rs. 50,39,604/- along with interest and penalties, and held the imported goods liable for confiscation. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

    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 Sets Aside Misclassification Allegations​

    CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Misclassification Allegations​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 10.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Misclassification 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 victory for M/s. Gravity Ventures Pvt. ​ Ltd., the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside allegations of misclassification and misdeclaration of imported goods. The case revolved around the classification of non-woven interlining materials imported by the company, which were detained by the Customs Department, leading to a prolonged legal battle. ​

    Background of the Case

    Gravity Ventures had filed Bill of Entry No. ​ 7384974 dated 02.04.2020 for the import of various non-woven interlining materials. ​ The company classified the goods under specific Customs Tariff Headings (CTH) based on the Country of Origin Certificate and invoices provided by the foreign supplier. ​ The Customs Department, however, disputed the classification and proposed alternative CTHs, leading to demands for differential duty, penalties, and fines. ​

    The department alleged that the company had misdeclared the goods to evade customs duty. ​ This resulted in the detention of the goods and subsequent provisional release only after the company filed writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. ​ The High Court directed the Customs Department to provisionally release the goods upon execution of a bond and bank guarantee.

    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 Overturns Mis-Declared Country of Origin

    CESTAT Allahabad Overturns Mis-Declared Country of Origin

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 10.09.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Overturns Mis-Declared Country of Origin​ ​ ​  

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has allowed appeals in a case involving alleged mis-declaration of the country of origin for imported dry dates. The case, which revolved around the importation of dry dates purportedly originating from the UAE but suspected to be of Pakistani origin, highlights critical issues in customs enforcement, evidentiary standards, and procedural lapses. ​

    Background of the Case ​

    The case stemmed from intelligence received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) regarding importers allegedly evading customs duty by mis-declaring the country of origin of dry dates. ​ Following investigations, the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida, issued an order confiscating the goods and imposing penalties on multiple parties, including importers, clearing agents, and the supplier based in the UAE. ​

    The crux of the case was the determination of the country of origin, which carried significant implications for customs duty rates. ​ Goods originating from Pakistan attracted a 200% duty under Notification No. ​ 05/2019-Cus dated 16.02.2019, while goods from the UAE were subject to a much lower duty rate.

    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 Hyderabad Rules in Favor of PH Jewels in Gold Export Obligation Dispute

    CESTAT Hyderabad Rules in Favor of PH Jewels in Gold Export Obligation Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.09.2025

    CESTAT Hyderabad Rules in Favor of PH Jewels in Gold Export Obligation Dispute​ ​ ​ ​ ​

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has set aside the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, in the case involving PH Jewels and Appellant. ​ This decision, pronounced on September 8, 2025, brings clarity to the interpretation of exemption notifications under the Customs Act, 1962, and provides relief to the appellants.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the alleged diversion of 25 kg of duty-free gold imported by PH Jewels under Notification No. ​ 57/2000-Cus dated 8.5.2000. ​ The Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in 2017, claiming that PH Jewels had sold the imported gold in the domestic market instead of using it to manufacture jewelry for export. ​ The Principal Commissioner of Customs subsequently passed an order confirming the demand for customs duty, interest, and penalties on PH Jewels and Appellant.

    Source: CESTAT Hyderabad

    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 Overturns Late Filing Charges of Bill of entry

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Late Filing Charges of Bill of entry

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Late Filing Charges of Bill of entry​ ​ ​ Β 

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside charges for late filing of a bill of entry against Titanium Ten Enterprises Ltd. ​ The case, which revolved around procedural lapses in the customs clearance process, highlights the importance of accountability in the electronic customs system and the responsibilities of customs authorities. ​

    Case Background

    Titanium Ten Enterprises Ltd, a Surat-based company, had imported 100% polyester filament yarn and filed an advance bill of entry (No. 6359527/06.01.2020) as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ However, due to an issue in the Indian Customs Electronic System (ICES), the advance bill of entry was not regularized, compelling the company to file a fresh bill of entry (No. ​ 7080859/02.03.2020). ​ This delay led to the imposition of late filing charges amounting to β‚Ή4,33,446. ​ The company challenged the charges, arguing that the delay was caused by a system error beyond their control. ​

    The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – II, dismissed their appeal, prompting Titanium Ten Enterprises Ltd to approach the CESTAT.

    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

  • Announcement

    Announcement

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.09.2025

    Global Conference on Fundamentals of Importing into the EU, UK, and India

    How to Register:

    Register by 22 September 2025 via the QR Code on the Flyer or by Google Form Link . Registration is completely free! ​ Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from the best in the field.

    Source: ITI, CTC

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    Webinar Invitation/RegistrationDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com