ALO Partners Logo

𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Imports

  • CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies that physical verification of the exporter’s premises is not mandatory​

    CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies that physical verification of the exporter’s premises is not mandatory​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.08.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies that physical verification of the exporter’s premises is not mandatory​ ​ ​ ​ ​

     

    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), Bangalore, has set aside a penalty of Rs. ​ 50,000 imposed on M/s. ​ Chakiat Agencies, a Customs Broker, under Regulation 18 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation (CBLR), 2013. ​ This decision, delivered on August 28, 2025, highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the interpretation of regulatory requirements in the customs brokerage industry.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Chakiat Agencies, a Customs Broker licensed by the Custom House, Chennai, was issued a show-cause notice alleging non-compliance with Regulations 11(a), 11(n), and 17(9) of CBLR, 2013. ​ The allegations stemmed from their handling of shipping bills for M/s. ​ Logo Trading through ICD, Bangalore. ​ The primary contention was that the broker failed to physically verify the existence of the exporter at the declared premises, which was deemed a violation of Regulation 11(n). ​ Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, imposed a penalty of Rs. ​ 50,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013.

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    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 Accepts Declared Value and Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty for LED Screen Imports

    CESTAT Chennai Accepts Declared Value and Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty for LED Screen Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Accepts Declared Value and Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty for LED Screen Imports

    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, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has delivered justice to M/s. Sureshkanna Video & Photo, a Chennai-based importer, by setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II). ​ This case highlights the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements under the Customs Valuation Rules.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Sureshkanna Video & Photo imported LED screen components from China, declaring a value of Rs. ​ 19,59,313/- (US $42,441). ​ However, based on intelligence, the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation of the goods. ​ During a search of the proprietor’s premises, an unsigned draft contract was retrieved, which the authorities relied upon to reject the declared value and re-determine it at Rs. ​ 32,75,596/-. The goods were confiscated, and penalties were imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The appellant challenged the findings, arguing that the unsigned contract was merely a draft and not the actual sales contract. ​ Despite repeated requests, the appellant was denied access to the unsigned contract and the opportunity for cross-examination, raising serious concerns about the violation of natural justice.

    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 Kolkata Overturns Penalty on Customs Broker

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Penalty on Customs Broker

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Penalty on Customs Broker

    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 judgment, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has delivered justice to M/s. ​ Daga Shipping Agents Pvt. ​ Ltd., a Customs Broker, by setting aside the penalty of Rs. ​ 3,00,000/- imposed under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision marks a crucial moment for Customs Brokers across the country, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and bona fide actions in their professional duties.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the export of 37,500 capacitors by M/s Poonam Export, facilitated by M/s. ​ Daga Shipping Agents Pvt. ​ Ltd. The consignment was detained by the Special Investigation Branch (SIB) on allegations of overvaluation. ​ Subsequently, summons issued to the exporter revealed discrepancies in the address provided, leading to a Show Cause Notice against the Customs Broker for allegedly failing to verify the exporter’s credentials adequately. ​

    Despite the appellant providing all necessary documents, including KYC, Aadhaar, PAN, IT returns, GST certificates, and bank letters, the Revenue alleged non-compliance with Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. ​ This resulted in the imposition of a penalty of Rs. ​ 3,00,000/- under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delegated Legislation in Indirect Taxes: Judicial Scrutiny under the Customs Act, 1962 & Indirect Taxes

    Delegated Legislation in Indirect Taxes: Judicial Scrutiny under the Customs Act, 1962 & Indirect Taxes

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.08.2025

    Delegated Legislation in Indirect Taxes: Judicial Scrutiny under the Customs Act, 1962 & Indirect Taxes

    ​ ​ ​ ​

    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.

    1. Constitutional Framework for Delegated Legislation

    • Article 245–246: Only Parliament/State legislatures can levy taxes; delegation cannot include “essential legislative functions.”
    • Article 265: “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” Thus, a rule, notification, circular, or regulation cannot create/expand a tax liability without clear legislative sanction.
    • Doctrine of Excessive Delegation: Laid down in In re Delhi Laws Act (1951 SCR 747), later reaffirmed in Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1979 1 SCC 137). Parliament may delegate the manner or details of implementation, but not the policy or essential features.
    • Judicial role: Courts test whether delegated instruments remain within the “parent Act” or trespass into taxation without statute.

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

    Source: Multiple sources- High Court, Indian Kanoon, Economic Times

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Madras High Court held that valuation must be based on the “transaction value” as per Section 14 of the Customs Act

    Madras High Court held that valuation must be based on the “transaction value” as per Section 14 of the Customs Act

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.08.2025

    Madras High Court held that valuation must be based on the “transaction value” as per Section 14 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.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    On December 17, 2021, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. ​ IG International Private Limited vs. ​ The Deputy Commissioner of Customs & Others (W.P. ​ No. 6033 of 2020). ​ The case revolved around the legality of a Valuation Alert Notice issued by the customs authorities and its impact on the assessment of imported goods. ​ This judgment provides clarity on the scope of valuation alerts under the Customs Act, 1962, and their binding nature on importers and assessing officers.

    Background of the Case

    The petitioner, M/s. IG International Private Limited, challenged the Valuation Alert Notice dated May 8, 2017, issued by the customs authorities. ​ The petitioner argued that the valuation alert was contrary to Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. ​ The petitioner contended that the alert interfered with the assessment process by mandating the use of benchmark prices, which forced them to pay higher customs duties on imported apples, a perishable commodity. ​

    The petitioner further argued that the valuation alert was not binding on assessing officers and that the assessment should be based on the “transaction value” declared by the importer unless there were valid reasons to doubt its accuracy.

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

    Source: Madras High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi- DRI and Commissioner of Customs cannot declare DEPB scrips issued by DGFT as null and void

    CESTAT Delhi- DRI and Commissioner of Customs cannot declare DEPB scrips issued by DGFT as null and void

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- DRI and Commissioner of Customs cannot declare DEPB scrips issued by DGFT as null and void​ ​ ​ ​ ​

     

    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), New Delhi, has set aside penalties and duty demands imposed on 21 appellants, including importers, bank officials, and a chartered accountant, in a case involving Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) scrips. ​ This judgment highlights critical legal principles and clarifies the scope of authority under the Customs Act, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, and FEMA regulations.

    Background of the Case

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated investigations against exporters accused of misusing export promotion schemes, such as DEPB and drawback, by filing false declarations. ​ The DEPB scrips, issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), were allegedly obtained fraudulently and later sold to importers who used them to import goods. ​ The DRI concluded that these scrips were ab initio null and void, leading to demands for customs duty and penalties on importers, bank officials, and a chartered accountant.

    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

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

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

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.08.2025

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

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

    Background of the Case

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

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Orders Refund of Double Customs Duty

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Refund of Double Customs Duty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.08.2025

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

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

    Background of the Case ​

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

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

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Bangalore Sets Aside Penalty Under Section 117​

    CESTAT Bangalore Sets Aside Penalty Under Section 117​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.08.2025

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

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

    Case Overview

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

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

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds

    CESTAT Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.08.2025

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

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

    Background of the Case

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

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

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

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com