𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Imports

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
Bombay High Court Mandates Release of Confiscated Goods
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 26.12.2025

Bombay High Court Mandates Release of Confiscated 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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court recently ruled in favor of Ganesh Benzoplast Limited, directing the release of seized goods that had been held by customs authorities for nearly two years. The case, which revolved around the import of caustic soda without the requisite Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification, highlights critical issues of judicial discipline, administrative delays, and the protection of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.

Background of the Case

Ganesh Benzoplast Limited, a public limited company engaged in the manufacturing, export, and import of chemicals, imported a consignment of caustic soda from M/s. Mena Energy, Dubai, in November 2018. The goods were manufactured by M/s. Aravand Petrochemical Company, Iran, which had applied for BIS certification in October 2018. However, the consignment arrived in India before the certification process was completed, and the goods were not accompanied by the mandatory BIS certificate as per the Bureau of Indian Standard (Caustic Soda) Order, 2018.

The customs authorities seized the goods in March 2019, citing non-compliance with the BIS standards. Subsequently, the Joint Commissioner of Customs passed an order-in-original in November 2019, confiscating the goods and imposing a penalty of ₹1 crore on Ganesh Benzoplast Limited. The company appealed the decision to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who set aside the order-in-original in December 2019 and directed fresh testing of the goods to determine compliance with BIS standards.

The High Court’s Observations

The High Court, presided over by Justices, meticulously examined the facts and legal arguments presented by both parties. The Court noted several key points:
1. BIS Certification and Compliance: The foreign manufacturer obtained BIS certification for the caustic soda in September 2019, retroactively covering the goods imported in November 2018. Additionally, fresh testing of the goods by a BIS-accredited laboratory confirmed that the consignment conformed to the required IS 252:2013 standard.
2. Judicial Discipline: The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, stating that orders from higher appellate authorities must be followed by subordinate authorities unless stayed by a competent court. The original authority’s failure to comply with the appellate order was deemed a violation of judicial discipline.
3. Administrative Delays: The Court criticized the customs authorities for their lack of urgency in complying with the appellate order and filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The delay in filing the appeal and the absence of a stay on the appellate order were deemed unjustifiable.
4. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Court held that the continued seizure of the goods, despite the appellate order setting aside the confiscation, amounted to an unlawful deprivation of property, violating Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
The Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court directed the customs authorities to release the seized goods immediately, stating that their continued detention was unjustified and illegal. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the appellate decision, as the matter was pending before the CESTAT. However, it underscored the need for administrative authorities to respect and comply with judicial orders to uphold the rule of law and prevent undue harassment of businesses.

Key Takeaways
1. Judicial Discipline: The judgment reinforces the principle that orders from higher appellate authorities must be followed by subordinate authorities to ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system.
2. Timely Compliance: The case highlights the importance of timely compliance with judicial orders and the adverse consequences of administrative delays.
3. Protection of Property Rights: The Court’s decision serves as a reminder that the government cannot arbitrarily deprive individuals or businesses of their property without due process.
4. Impact on Trade and Business: The judgment is a significant win for businesses, as it underscores the importance of fair and timely resolution of disputes to avoid financial losses and operational disruptions.
Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in the Ganesh Benzoplast Limited case is a testament to the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of businesses and ensuring administrative accountability. It sends a strong message about the importance of adhering to judicial orders and respecting the rule of law. This case will likely serve as a precedent for similar disputes in the future, ensuring that businesses are not subjected to undue delays and arbitrary actions by authorities.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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
December 26, 2025
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Allegations of Misdeclaration and Undervaluation in Coral Import
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 26.12.2025

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Allegations of Misdeclaration and Undervaluation in Coral Import

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

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Kartik Traders & Others vs. Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The case revolved around allegations of misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods, specifically “Processed Coral Waste,” under Bill of Entry No. 417629 dated 03.11.2005. The Tribunal, after a detailed examination of the evidence and legal precedents, set aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an investigation initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in 2008 against M/s Kartik Traders, the appellant, which was engaged in importing and trading herbal medicinal materials and other products. The investigation focused on two Bills of Entry: No. 100964 dated 03.08.2005 and No. 417629 dated 03.11.2005. The DRI alleged that the appellant had imported 500 kg of “Processed Coral Waste” from E.T.N. Industries Ltd., Hong Kong, and declared the CIF value as USD 5,900. However, the department enhanced the value to USD 13 per unit, claiming that the goods were misdeclared and undervalued.

The investigation relied heavily on overseas inquiries conducted with Dubai Customs regarding a previous consignment imported under Bill of Entry No. 100964. Dubai Customs reported that the actual value of the goods in the earlier consignment was USD 12,400, contrary to the declared value of USD 2,600. Based on this information, the department alleged that the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 417629 were also misdeclared and undervalued, leading to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice on 24.10.2008.

Arguments Presented

Appellants’ Submissions 

The appellants, represented by their learned counsel, argued that the impugned order was erroneous and based on extrapolation rather than direct evidence. Key points raised by the appellants included:
1. No Independent Investigation: The department failed to conduct an independent investigation into the subject Bill of Entry (No. 417629). Instead, the duty demand was raised based on extrapolation from the earlier consignment under Bill of Entry No. 100964, which is impermissible under the law.
2. Lack of Substantive Evidence: The department did not provide any direct or material evidence to substantiate the allegations of misdeclaration and undervaluation. The entire case was based on retracted statements and evidence from a different consignment.
3. Validity of Statements: The appellants contended that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were taken under duress and were retracted through affidavits. They argued that these statements could not be relied upon as the procedure under Section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed.
4. Invoice and Supplier Declaration: The appellants provided invoices and declarations from the supplier, E.T.N. Industries Ltd., Hong Kong, certifying that the goods were “Processed Coral Waste” valued at USD 5,900. These documents were not adequately addressed or rebutted in the impugned order.
5. Extended Period of Limitation: The appellants argued that the extended period of limitation was invoked without valid evidence of fraud, suppression, or misrepresentation, making the demand unsustainable.
Department’s Submissions 

The department argued that the goods were misdeclared as “Processed Coral Waste” instead of “Coral” and that the actual transaction value was suppressed. They relied on the overseas inquiry report from Dubai Customs regarding the earlier consignment and statements from individuals, which allegedly confirmed the undervaluation. The department contended that the retraction of statements was invalid as it was made after a significant delay.

CESTAT’s Observations and Judgment

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal made the following observations:
1. Extrapolation is Impermissible: The Tribunal emphasized that each import is an independent assessment and cannot be based on projections or extrapolations from previous investigations. It cited the case of Principal Commissioner v. Sachdev Overseas Fitness Pvt. Ltd., which held that transaction values cannot be rejected based on extrapolation.
2. Lack of Independent Evidence: The Tribunal noted that the department failed to provide direct evidence of misdeclaration or undervaluation for the subject Bill of Entry. The reliance on the earlier consignment’s investigation was insufficient to confirm the duty demand.
3. Supplier’s Documentation: The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants had provided invoices and declarations from the supplier, E.T.N. Industries Ltd., Hong Kong, certifying the nature and value of the goods. These documents were not adequately addressed or rebutted by the department.
4. Retraction of Statements: The Tribunal observed that the retraction of statements, though delayed, could not be disregarded without proper examination. It also noted that the department failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs Act, making the statements inadmissible.
5. Extended Period of Limitation: The Tribunal found that the department did not provide sufficient evidence to justify invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act.
6. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal referred to several case laws, including Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex ., Vishakhapatnam and Commissioner of Customs vs Ganpati Overseas, to reinforce its stance that allegations of undervaluation must be supported by direct evidence and cannot be based on assumptions or extrapolations.
Final Decision

The Tribunal concluded that the department’s reliance on extrapolation and retracted statements, without substantive evidence, was legally unsustainable. It set aside the impugned order, including the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants. The appeals were allowed, and the judgment was pronounced on 19.12.2025.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Direct Evidence: The judgment underscores the necessity of direct and substantive evidence in cases of alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation. Extrapolation from previous investigations is not a valid basis for confirming duty demands.
2. Admissibility of Statements: Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act must comply with the procedure under Section 138B to be admissible as evidence. Retractions, even if delayed, must be considered.
3. Invoice and Supplier Declarations: Importers should ensure proper documentation, including invoices and supplier declarations, to substantiate their claims during disputes.
4. Extended Period of Limitation: The extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act can only be invoked with credible evidence of fraud, suppression, or misrepresentation.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal principles and evidentiary requirements in customs investigations. It also highlights the need for importers to maintain accurate documentation and transparency in their transactions to avoid disputes with customs authorities.

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 26, 2025
CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Refund Rejection
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 25.12.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Refund Rejection

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 Drive India Enterprises Solutions Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai (Customs Appeal No. 85417 of 2022). This case revolved around the rejection of a refund claim for excess customs duty paid on imported mobile handsets. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble, Member Technical has set a precedent in interpreting the legal provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly concerning self-assessment, re-assessment, and refund claims.

Background of the Case

The appellants, M/s Drive India Enterprises Solutions Limited, are engaged in freight, logistics, and warehousing services. Between January 2015 and March 2015, they imported mobile handsets through the Air Cargo Complex in Mumbai. At the time of import, the goods were classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8517 1290, and the applicable Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) was paid at the standard rate of 12.5%. However, the appellants later realized that they were eligible for a concessional CVD rate of 1% under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 12/2015-C.E., provided no CENVAT credit was claimed.

The appellants approached the jurisdictional customs authorities to amend their self-assessment and applied for a refund of the excess CVD paid. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs initially sanctioned a refund of Rs. 32,93,132/- based on documentary evidence and compliance with the unjust enrichment principle. However, the department challenged this decision, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the refund order, leading the appellants to file an appeal before the CESTAT.

Key Legal Issues 

The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was justified in rejecting the refund claim by setting aside the original refund sanction order. The Tribunal examined the case in light of the Customs Act, 1962, and relevant judicial precedents, including the landmark Supreme Court judgments in ITC Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV and SRF Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai.

Legal Provisions Examined 

The Tribunal referred to several key sections of the Customs Act, 1962, including:
1. Section 17: This section deals with the assessment and re-assessment of duty. It allows importers to self-assess the duty payable on imported goods and provides for re-assessment by the proper officer if the self-assessment is found to be incorrect.
2. Section 27: This section outlines the procedure for claiming a refund of duty or interest paid or borne by an importer. It specifies the conditions and time limits for filing refund claims.
3. Section 149: This section permits amendments to documents, such as Bills of Entry, even after goods have been cleared for home consumption, provided the amendment is based on documentary evidence that existed at the time of clearance.
4. Section 154: This section allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in any decision or order passed by customs authorities.
Tribunal’s Observations

The Tribunal made the following key observations:
1. Assessment and Re-assessment: The Tribunal clarified that the self-assessment made by the appellants at the time of import and the subsequent re-assessment by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs were valid under Sections 17 and 149 of the Customs Act. The re-assessment was based on documentary evidence available at the time of import, fulfilling the legal requirements.
2. Refund Eligibility: The Tribunal noted that the appellants had filed their refund claim within the prescribed time limit and had provided sufficient evidence to prove that the burden of excess duty was not passed on to their customers, satisfying the unjust enrichment principle under Section 27.
3. Error in Commissioner (Appeals)’ Decision: The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in concluding that the re-assessment was not conducted properly. The Tribunal emphasized that the re-assessment and amendment of the Bills of Entry were consistent with the legal provisions and supported by documentary evidence.
4. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in ITC Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV, which held that refund claims under Section 27 are valid only if the assessment or self-assessment is modified in accordance with the law. The Tribunal also relied on other judgments, including SRF Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, which supported the appellants’ eligibility for the concessional CVD rate.
Final Decision

After a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief as per the law.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Proper Assessment and Re-assessment: The judgment underscores the significance of accurate self-assessment and the role of customs authorities in verifying and re-assessing duty payments.
2. Refund Claims and Legal Compliance: Importers must ensure that refund claims are filed within the prescribed time limit and supported by documentary evidence to satisfy the unjust enrichment principle.
3. Judicial Precedents Matter: The Tribunal’s reliance on Supreme Court judgments highlights the importance of established legal principles in determining the outcome of refund claims.
4. Amendment of Bills of Entry: Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act provide avenues for amending or correcting Bills of Entry, which can be crucial for claiming refunds.
Conclusion

The decision in Drive India Enterprises Solutions Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai is a landmark ruling that clarifies the legal framework for refund claims under the Customs Act, 1962. It reinforces the importance of adhering to legal provisions and highlights the role of judicial precedents in shaping the interpretation of customs laws. Importers and legal practitioners can draw valuable insights from this case to navigate similar disputes effectively.

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 25, 2025
CESTAT Chennai Clarifying Penalty Provisions Under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 25.12.2025

CESTAT Chennai Clarifying Penalty Provisions Under Section 112(a) of the Customs 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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Customs Appeal No. 40675 of 2025, which has set a precedent in interpreting the scope of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. This case involved Appellant, a partner of M/s. Active Global Logistics, who was penalized for alleged involvement in the smuggling of foreign-origin cigarettes under the guise of imported goods declared as pampers. The Tribunal’s decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant has brought clarity to the legal interpretation of “abetment” under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) into goods imported by M/s. V.K.R. Impex, Chennai, under Bill of Entry No. 3054047 dated April 30, 2019. The investigation revealed that Gudang Garam cigarettes of foreign origin were being smuggled under the guise of pampers. The goods were seized, and show-cause notices were issued to various individuals, including the appellant, who was the Customs Broker for the importer.

The appellant was accused of failing to comply with the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018, particularly the Know Your Customer (KYC) obligations. The authorities alleged that the appellant facilitated customs clearance for a non-existent entity, M/s. VKR Impex, and accepted documents from unauthorized individuals. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged this penalty before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, who upheld the penalty, leading to the present appeal before the CESTAT.

Key Legal Issue 

The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was legally sustainable. Section 112(a) penalizes individuals who commit acts or omissions that render goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act or abet such acts.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant’s counsel argued that penalties under the Customs Act for alleged violations of the CBLR are not legally sustainable.
- The appellant contended that his role as a Customs Broker was limited to facilitating the clearance of goods, and he was not directly involved in the smuggling activities.
- The counsel cited several judicial precedents, including Rajeev Khatri v CC (Export), 2023 (7) TMI 218-Delhi High Court, which clarified that mens rea (criminal intent) is not required for imposing penalties under Section 112(a) unless the person is alleged to have abetted the act of smuggling.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent argued that the appellant’s failure to verify the antecedents of the importer and his acceptance of documents from unauthorized individuals constituted a violation of the CBLR and rendered him liable for penalty under Section 112(a).
- The respondent emphasized that the appellant’s actions facilitated the smuggling attempt and demonstrated negligence and complicity.
Tribunal’s Observations and Judgment

After hearing both parties and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal made the following key observations:
1. Lack of Evidence for Abetment: The Tribunal noted that neither the show-cause notice nor the impugned order provided evidence to prove that the appellant had abetted the smuggling of cigarettes. The statements relied upon by the authorities were not tested for relevancy under Section 138B of the Customs Act, making them legally untenable.
2. No Proof of Intentional Involvement: The Tribunal found no evidence of intentional acts by the appellant that would constitute abetment under Section 112(a). The alleged monetary gains and links to the main accused were not substantiated.
3. Negligence vs. Abetment: While the appellant’s failure to verify the antecedents of the importer and comply with KYC obligations under the CBLR was deemed negligent, the Tribunal clarified that such negligence does not equate to abetment of smuggling under Section 112(a).
4. Misapplication of Section 112(b): The Tribunal criticized the Appellate Authority for invoking Section 112(b) in its findings, despite the show-cause notice and the original order only proposing penalty under Section 112(a). This was deemed legally unsound.
5. Applicability of CBLR: The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant’s conduct should have been addressed under the CBLR, 2018, which governs the responsibilities of Customs Brokers. However, there was no evidence that the appellant had been proceeded against under these regulations.
Final Order

Based on the above findings, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) was legally unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

Key Takeaways

This judgment is a landmark decision that clarifies the scope of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, particularly in cases involving allegations of abetment. The Tribunal’s observations highlight the importance of evidence and the distinction between negligence under the CBLR and abetment under the Customs Act. The decision also underscores the need for customs authorities to adhere to procedural requirements, such as testing the relevancy of statements under Section 138B, before imposing penalties.

Conclusion

The case of Appellant v Commissioner of Customs serves as a reminder of the importance of due process and evidence in adjudicating customs-related offenses. It reinforces the principle that penalties under Section 112(a) require clear evidence of intentional acts or knowledge of wrongdoing, particularly in cases of alleged abetment. This judgment is expected to have a significant impact on similar cases in the future, ensuring that penalties are imposed only when legally justified.

Source: CESTAT Chennai

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 25, 2025
CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Classification and Valuation Orders in Adulterated Diesel Dispute

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 24.12.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Classification and Valuation Orders in Adulterated Diesel 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.

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a significant judgment on December 19, 2025, addressing eight identical appeals concerning the classification and valuation of imported goods. The case revolved around the importation of goods declared as “penetrating oil-60” by eight appellants, which the Customs Department reclassified as “adulterated diesel” under Chapter Heading (CTH) 2710 1990, leading to enhanced valuation, penalties, and confiscation orders.

Background of the Case

The appellants, including companies such as M/s Auto Stores, Dashmesh Trade Impex, Amarjeet Enterprises, and others, had imported consignments of “penetrating oil-60 (for industrial use)” under CTH 3403 9900, which covers industrial lubricating preparations. However, based on intelligence gathered by the R&I Division of Customs, Mumbai, the Respondent-Department alleged that the goods were “adulterated diesel” and reclassified them under CTH 2710 1990, which pertains to petroleum oils containing more than 70% petroleum oil or oils obtained from bituminous minerals.

The Respondent-Department argued that the test reports indicated the presence of more than 70% petroleum hydrocarbons, which led to the conclusion that the goods were adulterated diesel. Consequently, the Department imposed enhanced duties, penalties, and redemption fines, and ordered the confiscation of the goods.

Key Arguments Presented

During the hearing, the appellants, represented by Advocate, argued that the Department failed to conclusively prove the reclassification of the goods. The test reports confirmed that the goods did not meet the requirements of high-speed diesel as per IS 1460:2025, but did not provide evidence of adulteration. The appellants contended that the burden of proof for reclassification lies with the Department, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in previous rulings.

The appellants also highlighted that the issue of classification had already been settled by the Tribunal in favor of one of the appellants, M/s Ideal Impex, in a similar case involving the same product. The Tribunal had overturned the classification and valuation orders, holding that the goods were correctly classified under CTH 3403 9900.

Furthermore, the appellants argued that the alleged violation of Rule 30 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, was not applicable to them as importers, as the rule pertains to the transportation of petroleum products in bulk by ships or vessels.

Tribunal’s Observations and Final Order 

The Tribunal carefully examined the arguments, test reports, and relevant legal provisions, including CTH 3403 and CTH 2710. It noted that the test reports were inconclusive and did not establish the presence of adulterated diesel. The Tribunal also emphasized that the burden of proof for reclassification was not discharged by the Department.

The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the case of M/s Ideal Impex, which had set a judicial precedent for similar cases. It concluded that the imported goods were appropriately classified under CTH 3403 and that the Department’s reclassification and valuation were flawed.

In its final order, the Tribunal allowed all eight appeals, setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, and granting consequential relief to the appellants.

Implications of the Judgment

This landmark decision by the CESTAT, Mumbai, underscores the importance of adhering to established legal principles in classification disputes. It reiterates that the burden of proof for reclassification lies with the Revenue Department and that inconclusive test reports cannot form the basis for altering the classification and valuation of imported goods.

The judgment also highlights the significance of judicial precedents in ensuring consistency and predictability in legal decisions. By upholding the precedent set in the case of M/s Ideal Impex, the Tribunal has reinforced the principle of fairness and uniformity in adjudicating similar cases. This ruling serves as a reminder to importers and regulatory authorities alike to ensure compliance with legal provisions and to base decisions on concrete evidence. It also provides clarity on the interpretation of tariff headings and the application of rules under the Petroleum Act, 1934, and Petroleum Rules, 2002.

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 24, 2025
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Allegations of Undervaluation and Customs Duty Evasion
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 24.12.2025

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Allegations of Undervaluation and Customs Duty Evasion

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

In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has delivered a judgment in favor of M/s ABC Overseas, effectively setting aside allegations of customs duty evasion and undervaluation of imported goods. The case, which revolved around the import of LED TVs and Drywall Screws, has been a significant legal battle for the appellant.

Background of the Case

M/s ABC Overseas, a New Delhi-based importer and trader of goods, primarily deals in LED TVs and Drywall Screws. The company faced allegations from the Department of Customs regarding evasion of customs duty through undervaluation of imported goods. The dispute arose from the import of unbranded 17” and 19” LED TVs under Bill of Entry No. 4973274 dated 27.01.2018, and six past Bills of Entry from 2016 to 2018 for Drywall Screws.

The Department alleged that the imported goods were branded and undervalued, leading to evasion of customs duties. The case was built on comparisons between the declared transaction values and proforma invoices from unrelated third parties, as well as documents retrieved during investigations.

Key Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant, represented by legal counsels, argued that the goods imported under the live Bill of Entry were physically examined and found to match the commercial invoice and packing list. They contended that the TVs were unbranded, as only the LED panels had brand stickers, which were revealed after unscrewing the back panel. The appellant also highlighted that the certificate of origin, which contained incorrect details, was issued by the Government of Thailand and the error was later clarified by the foreign exporter.

Regarding the past Bills of Entry, the appellant argued that the Department’s reliance on proforma invoices from unrelated third parties was unjustified. They emphasized that the declared transaction values were accurate and supported by commercial invoices, packing lists, and payments made through official banking channels. The appellant also pointed out that the Department failed to provide contemporaneous export data or evidence of undervaluation.

Tribunal’s Observations and Final Decision

After hearing both parties and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal made the following key observations:
1. Live Bill of Entry: The Tribunal noted that the goods were found to be in conformity with the commercial invoice and packing list during a 100% examination. It held that the Department’s allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration were baseless, as the TVs were correctly declared as unbranded.
2. Past Bills of Entry: The Tribunal found that the Department’s reliance on proforma invoices from unrelated third parties was unreasonable. It emphasized that transaction value, as defined under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, should be the basis for determining customs duty unless there is substantial evidence to reject it. The Tribunal also highlighted the lack of compliance with Section 138C of the Customs Act regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence.
The Tribunal concluded that the Department’s allegations were based on assumptions and lacked substantial evidence. It set aside the order rejecting the declared values and re-determining the transaction values, thereby allowing the appeal.

Key Takeaways

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and evidentiary requirements when investigating allegations of customs duty evasion. It also highlights the significance of transaction value as the primary basis for determining customs duty, as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision is a major victory for M/s ABC Overseas, reaffirming the principle that allegations must be backed by concrete evidence and not mere assumptions. It serves as a reminder to importers and authorities alike about the importance of transparency, compliance, and adherence to legal norms in customs-related matters.

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 24, 2025
Madras High Court Declares GST Notifications Illegal
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 23.12.2025

Madras High Court Declares GST Notifications Illegal

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 December 17, 2025, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court delivered a landmark judgment in favor of Tvl Voylla Fashions Private Limited, represented by its authorized signatory. The case, W.P. (MD) No. 36017 of 2025, challenged the validity of two GST notifications issued by the Union of India: Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023. The court ruled these notifications as vitiated and illegal, marking a significant victory for the petitioner.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Tvl Voylla Fashions Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notifications and the consequential assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) for the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the notifications violated several constitutional provisions, including Article 14, 246A, and 265, and were ultra vires Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioner contended that the notifications were issued retrospectively, curtailing the limitation period for assessment and adjudication under the CGST Act. This, they argued, was contrary to the Supreme Court’s order dated January 10, 2022, which excluded the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for the purpose of calculating the limitation period under Section 73 of the CGST Act.

Key Arguments and Court Observations

During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents presented their arguments. The court noted that the issue raised in this case had already been addressed in a previous judgment delivered on June 12, 2025, in W.P. Nos. 17184 of 2024, where the court had categorically held that:
1. The authorities under the CGST Act are entitled to exclude the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, while calculating the limitation period under Section 73 of the CGST Act, as per the Supreme Court’s order under Article 142 of the Constitution.
2. The impugned notifications were vitiated and illegal for several reasons:
  - They curtailed the limitation period contrary to the Supreme Court’s order under Article 142.
  - They were based on erroneous assumptions and misconceptions about the scope and effect of the Supreme Court’s order.
  - They arbitrarily extinguished the vested rights of action available to authorities under the CGST Act.
  - Notification No. 56/2023 was issued without the recommendations of the GST Council, violating the statutory mandate.
The court also highlighted issues such as the violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and errors apparent on the face of the record.

The Court’s Decision

After considering the submissions and referring to the earlier judgment, the Honorable Justice ruled in favor of the petitioner. The court declared the impugned notifications as vitiated and illegal and set aside the consequential assessment order dated August 28, 2024. The court directed the authorities to treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and allowed the petitioner to submit objections within 8 weeks. The authorities were instructed to pass fresh orders after providing the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment is a significant victory for taxpayers and businesses, as it reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and statutory mandates while issuing notifications under the GST framework. The court’s decision highlights the following key points:
1. Protection of Vested Rights: The judgment ensures that taxpayers’ rights are not arbitrarily curtailed by retrospective notifications that diminish the limitation period for assessment and adjudication.
2. Adherence to Supreme Court Orders: The ruling underscores the importance of complying with the Supreme Court’s directives, particularly those issued under Article 142 of the Constitution.
3. Role of the GST Council: The judgment reiterates the statutory requirement for the GST Council’s recommendations before issuing notifications, ensuring transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
Conclusion

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has once again demonstrated its commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of taxpayers. The victory of Tvl Voylla Fashions Private Limited serves as a reminder to authorities to exercise their powers within the bounds of the law and constitutional principles. This case sets a precedent for future challenges to arbitrary and retrospective notifications, ensuring a fair and just taxation system for all stakeholders.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Madras 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 23, 2025
CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of MIKO-3 (Robotic System) as Automatic Data Processing Unit under CTH 84714190

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 23.12.2025

CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of MIKO-3 (Robotic System) as Automatic Data Processing Unit under CTH 84714190

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) Chennai has ruled in favor of M/s RN Chidakashi Technologies Pvt. Ltd., upholding the classification of their product, MIKO-3, as an Automatic Data Processing Unit (ADPU) under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 84714190. This decision marks a significant win for the company, which had been embroiled in a legal battle over the classification of its innovative product.

The Case at a Glance

M/s RN Chidakashi Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company specializing in the import and manufacture of advanced robotic products under the brand name ‘MIKO,’ faced challenges from the customs authorities regarding the classification of their MIKO-3 model. While the company classified MIKO-3 as an ADPU under CTH 84714190, the customs authorities argued that the product should be classified as an “electronic toy” under CTH 9503, which attracts a higher Basic Customs Duty (BCD) of 60%.

The dispute arose when the Faceless Assessment Group rejected the company’s classification and imposed penalties, fines, and reclassification of the product as a toy. The company appealed against these decisions, citing technical specifications, certifications from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), and a favorable ruling from the Mumbai Bench of CESTAT in a similar case.

Key Arguments and Observations

The case revolved around whether MIKO-3, a social robot designed for learning, entertainment, and interaction, should be classified as an ADPU or an electronic toy. The company argued that MIKO-3’s primary function is data processing, with features such as artificial intelligence, face and speech recognition, autonomous navigation, and emotional intelligence. While the product is marketed to children, the company emphasized that its capabilities extend beyond mere amusement, making it a sophisticated learning and interaction tool.

The Tribunal noted that the Mumbai Bench had previously ruled in favor of the company, stating that MIKO-3 meets the essential requirements of an ADPU as outlined in Note 5(A) of Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal criticized the customs authorities for relying on superficial observations, such as the product’s packaging and its appeal to children, rather than considering its technical features and certifications.

The Final Verdict

After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the CESTAT Chennai concluded that the classification declared by the company under CTH 84714190 was correct. The Tribunal emphasized that the customs authorities had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify reclassifying MIKO-3 as an electronic toy. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits as per the law.

Implications of the Ruling

This decision is a significant victory for M/s RN Chidakashi Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and sets a precedent for the classification of advanced robotic products in India. It highlights the importance of considering technical specifications and expert opinions in classification disputes, rather than relying on superficial observations. The ruling also underscores the need for customs authorities to adhere to established legal principles when challenging classifications.

As technology continues to evolve, the distinction between toys and advanced devices like social robots becomes increasingly important. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in classifying innovative products and the need for a nuanced approach that reflects their true nature and functionality.

Conclusion

The CESTAT Chennai’s decision to uphold the classification of MIKO-3 as an ADPU is a testament to the importance of fair and informed adjudication in customs disputes. It not only provides relief to M/s RN Chidakashi Technologies Pvt. Ltd. but also paves the way for a more accurate and progressive approach to product classification in the future. This ruling is a win for innovation and a step forward in recognizing the transformative potential of advanced technologies in India.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Chennai

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 23, 2025