ALO Partners Logo

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

Tag: #Imports

  • CESTAT Delhi set aside the demand, interest, and penalties, and dismissed the department’s appeals

    CESTAT Delhi set aside the demand, interest, and penalties, and dismissed the department’s appeals

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi set aside the demand, interest, and penalties, and dismissed the department’s appeals ​ ​

    On August 7, 2025, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a significant judgment in Customs Appeal No. ​ 3567 of 2012, along with related appeals filed by the department. This case, involving M/s D.D. ​ Industries Ltd., sheds light on critical aspects of customs law, including the applicability of retail sale price (RSP) valuation, extended periods of limitation, and the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    M/s D.D. ​ Industries Ltd., engaged in the import, fitment, and trading of CNG kits and components, was accused by the customs department of evading customs duties. ​ The department alleged that the company paid Countervailing Duty (CVD) on the transaction value of imported CNG kits instead of the RSP basis, as required under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ A show cause notice was issued, and the Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand with penalties. ​ However, the Commissioner (Appeals) provided partial relief, dropping the extended period of limitation but confirming the demand for the normal period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. ​

    Both the appellant and the department filed appeals before the Tribunal. The appellant challenged the confirmation of the demand and penalties, while the department contested the Commissioner (Appeals)’ authority to remand the matter.

    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 Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai Confirms Duty-Free Import Classification for Automotive Body Control Modules

    CESTAT Chennai Confirms Duty-Free Import Classification for Automotive Body Control Modules

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Confirms Duty-Free Import Classification for Automotive Body Control Modules

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has upheld the classification of Body Control Modules (BCM) and Integrated Body Units (IBU) under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9032, rejecting the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II. This decision reaffirms the importance of understanding the technical nuances of imported goods and their classification under the Customs Tariff Act. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the classification of BCM and IBU imported by M/s. ​ Mobis India Ltd. ​ The company declared these goods under CTH 9032 8910, claiming a 0% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No. ​ 152/2009 (Sl. ​ No. 953). ​ However, the investigation branch of the Customs Department argued that these items should be classified under CTH 8537 1000, attracting a 5% BCD under the same notification. ​ The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II, in the original order, ruled in favor of M/s. Mobis India Ltd., prompting the department to appeal to 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 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 Clarifies Interest Liability in Provisional Customs Assessments

    CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Interest Liability in Provisional Customs Assessments

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Interest Liability in Provisional Customs Assessments ​ ​​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has delivered a judgment that clarifies the applicability of interest liability under Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, in cases of provisional customs assessments. The decision, pronounced on August 5, 2025, in the case of M/s NHPC Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, addresses key issues surrounding the retrospective application of interest provisions and penalties in customs law.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, NHPC Limited, a public sector undertaking under the Ministry of Power, imported equipment and spare parts for the Teesta Hydroelectric Project in Sikkim between April 2004 and April 2008. These imports were provisionally assessed under Section 18(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and classified under CTH 9801, availing a NIL rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD). ​ However, the Department later issued a show-cause notice in May 2019, alleging that the value of spare parts imported exceeded 10% of the value of the main equipment, violating the conditions of the customs notification. ​ Consequently, differential duty was demanded, along with interest and penalties.

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi Allows BCD and IGST Exemption on HIV Detection Kits

    CESTAT Delhi Allows BCD and IGST Exemption on HIV Detection Kits

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Allows BCD and IGST Exemption on HIV Detection Kits

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set a precedent by granting exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and reduced Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) rates to advanced HIV diagnostic kits imported by M/s Hemogenomics Pvt. ​ Ltd. This decision underscores the importance of technological advancements in healthcare and their alignment with public interest objectives. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s Hemogenomics Pvt. ​ Ltd., engaged in importing and supplying diagnostic kits, filed an appeal against the rejection of exemption benefits for their imported Procleix Ultrio Plus Assay Kits and Procleix Ultrio Elite Assay Kits. These kits, based on Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) technology, are used for detecting HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C viruses in blood specimens. The dispute arose when the Customs Department classified these kits under CTI 3822 00 90 and denied exemption benefits, arguing that the kits were not diagnostic kits for detecting HIV antibodies as specified in the exemption notifications.

    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 Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Quashes Bond Enforcement Against Bank of Nova Scotia

    CESTAT Delhi Quashes Bond Enforcement Against Bank of Nova Scotia

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Quashes Bond Enforcement Against Bank of Nova Scotia ​ ​​ ​

    In a significant ruling by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the Bank of Nova Scotia successfully challenged the enforcement of bonds executed for recovery of duty, interest, and penalty against two exporters, Nikkamal Jewellers and Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander (P) Ltd. ​ The decision, pronounced on August 5, 2025, sets a precedent for cases involving the obligations of nominated agencies under customs notifications.

    Background

    The Bank of Nova Scotia, a multinational financial service provider, operates as a nominated agency for importing bullion under the “Export Against Supply by Nominated Agencies” scheme. ​ This scheme, governed by Notification No. ​ 57/2000-Cus dated May 8, 2000, allowed duty-free import of gold, provided it was exported as jewellery within 120 days. ​ However, the second proviso of this notification, which mandated this obligation, was omitted by Notification No. ​ 33/2015-Cus dated May 15, 2015. ​

    The case arose when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted gold jewellery allegedly being smuggled by exporters linked to the Bank of Nova Scotia. A show cause notice was issued to various parties, including the exporters, but the Bank of Nova Scotia was not explicitly called upon to respond.

    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 Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chandigarh- No Misdeclaration or Undervaluation in Holi Balloon Imports

    CESTAT Chandigarh- No Misdeclaration or Undervaluation in Holi Balloon Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.08.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh- No Misdeclaration or Undervaluation in Holi Balloon Imports

    In a pivotal decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, dismissed an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, against M/s Goyal Brothers. The case revolved around the classification and valuation of imported goods, including balloons used during Holi and trolley bags. ​ This ruling not only clarifies the interpretation of Customs Tariff Headings but also reinforces the importance of adhering to valuation rules and principles of natural justice. ​

    Case Overview

    M/s Goyal Brothers imported balloons and trolley bags, declaring their classification under Customs Tariff Headings (CTH) 9505 9090 and 4202 1220, respectively. ​ While the quantities declared in one Bill of Entry matched the actual goods, discrepancies were noted in another Bill of Entry. The Customs Department reclassified the balloons under CTH 9503 0020 (toys), imposed penalties, and re-determined the value of the goods. ​ However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, leading to the Revenue’s appeal before 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 Chandigarh

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Time-Barred Duty Demand

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Time-Barred Duty Demand

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Time-Barred Duty Demand ​ ​​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside a duty demand of Rs. 16,54,073/- along with interest imposed on JSW Steel Ltd by the Commissioner of Customs, Panaji, Goa. ​ The case revolved around the legality of a corrigendum issued years after the original Show Cause Notice (SCN), raising questions about the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. ​ This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and procedural accuracy in customs adjudication. ​

    Background of the Case

    JSW Steel Ltd had exported Hot Rolled Non-Alloy Steel Coils and Cold Rolled Close Annealed Non-Alloy Wide Coils between April 10, 2008, and May 9, 2008. ​ A notification issued on May 10, 2008, amended the duty rates for these goods to 15% and 10%, respectively, which were previously exempt from duty. ​ While most shipping bills were cleared before the notification date, five shipping bills were cleared on May 10, 2008, leading to a demand for additional duty. ​

    The original SCN was issued on October 3, 2008, but lacked reference to the specific provision of the Customs Act under which the demand was raised. A corrigendum was issued on April 11, 2013, invoking Section 28 of the Customs Act and substantially altering the content of the original notice, including changes to the description and quantity of goods.

    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 Chennai- MRP Rules Not Applicable to Industrial Imports

    CESTAT Chennai- MRP Rules Not Applicable to Industrial Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai- MRP Rules Not Applicable to Industrial Imports

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside the duty demand imposed on M/s. ​ BEML Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking, by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III. The case revolved around the assessment of imported spares/components and the applicability of MRP/RSP-based duty under the Customs Tariff Act. ​ The Tribunal’s decision highlights critical aspects of legal interpretation, consumer protection laws, and the extended period of limitation under customs law. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appeal arose from an Order-in-Original dated 27.02.2015, wherein the Commissioner of Customs demanded differential duty on imported spares/components, alleging that these were pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sales without affixed MRP/RSP labels. ​ The period under dispute was April 2010 to November 2011, and the demand was based on the extended period of limitation, citing suppression of facts.

    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 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 Delhi Reinforced the rights of importers to seek amendments and claim refunds under the Customs Act

    CESTAT Delhi Reinforced the rights of importers to seek amendments and claim refunds under the Customs Act

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Reinforced the rights of importers to seek amendments and claim refunds under the Customs Act ​ ​​

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Trust Marketing vs. Commissioner of Customs. This decision, pronounced on July 28, 2025, has far-reaching implications for importers and the interpretation of key provisions under the Customs Act, 1962. Let’s delve into the details of this case and its impact on customs law.

    Background of the Case

    Trust Marketing, an importer and distributor of mobile phones, filed 180 Bills of Entry between February 2014 and October 2014, paying Additional Duty of Customs at a higher rate of 6%. ​ However, under Notification No. ​ 12/2012-CE dated March 17, 2012, the applicable duty was only 1%, provided Condition No. ​ 16 was satisfied. ​ This condition required that no credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 be availed for inputs or capital goods used in manufacturing the goods. ​

    Trust Marketing later sought to amend these Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to claim the lower duty rate and subsequently file for a refund under Section 27. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the request, citing finality of assessment and procedural limitations. ​ However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, allowing the amendments, which led to the department filing an appeal before 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 Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Clarifies Scope of Section 117 Customs Act in Export Documentation

    CESTAT Mumbai Clarifies Scope of Section 117 Customs Act in Export Documentation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Clarifies Scope of Section 117 Customs Act in Export Documentation ​  

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside a penalty of β‚Ή2,00,000/- imposed on M/s Ajanta Pharma Ltd. under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around alleged mis-declaration in Airway Bills for 43 consignments of pharmaceutical products exported between September 2018 and March 2021. ​ This decision highlights the importance of adhering to legal provisions and ensuring due process in penalty imposition. ​

    Background of the Case

    Ajanta Pharma Ltd., a prominent pharmaceutical exporter, faced allegations of mis-declaration in Airway Bills, where the goods were described as “medical apparatus” instead of their actual descriptionβ€”Erectile Dysfunction Medicines such as Kamagra Oral Jelly, Super Kamagra Tablets, and Kamagra Gold Tablets. ​ While the shipping bills, invoices, and packing lists contained accurate descriptions, the discrepancy in Airway Bills led the Customs Department to impose a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The penalty was challenged by Ajanta Pharma Ltd., arguing that the alleged contravention pertained to provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, not the Customs Act. ​ The company contended that no violation of the Customs Act was established, making the penalty unsustainable.

    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