ALO Partners Logo

𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Imports

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed the allegations of undervaluation

    CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed the allegations of undervaluation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.08.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed the allegations of undervaluation

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad, has ruled in favor of M/s Ruchi Enterprise, dismissing allegations of undervaluation of imported PVC Flex Sheets. The case, which has been under scrutiny for years, highlights critical aspects of customs valuation, evidentiary standards, and procedural fairness.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Ruchi Enterprise imported consignments of PVC Flex Sheets from China at Kandla Port. ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted one of the consignments, alleging undervaluation and short payment of customs duty. ​ Following investigations, the DRI issued a show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods, demanding differential duty of ₹12,93,381 along with interest and penalties under Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The adjudicating authority upheld the charges, imposing penalties and rejecting the declared transaction value. Subsequent appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal led to a series of legal proceedings, culminating in the present appeal.

    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 Ahmedabad

    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 Set Aside Re-determination of FOB Value and Confiscation

    CESTAT Delhi Set Aside Re-determination of FOB Value and Confiscation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 31.07.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Set Aside Re-determination of FOB Value and Confiscation ​

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Modak Dyeing & Printing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Customs Appeal No. ​ 53962 of 2023). This decision, pronounced on July 29, 2025, has far-reaching implications for exporters and the interpretation of customs valuation rules under the Customs Act, 1962. Let’s delve into the details of this case and its impact on the export industry.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s Modak Dyeing & Printing Co. Pvt. ​ Ltd., filed two shipping bills in August 2018 for the export of Girls Frocks Woven Made of Manmade Fibre, declaring a Free On Board (FOB) value of Rs. ​ 4,10,52,321/-. However, the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) suspected overvaluation of goods to claim excessive export benefits such as drawback, Refund of State Levies (ROSL), Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS), and IGST refund. ​

    Following a market inquiry, the customs authorities determined the market value of the goods to be between Rs. ​ 45/- to Rs. 65/- per piece, significantly lower than the declared value of Rs. 274.13 per piece. ​ Consequently, the Joint Commissioner rejected the declared FOB value under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and re-determined it under Rule 6, reducing the total value to Rs. ​ 74,88,000/-. The goods were confiscated, and penalties were imposed.

    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 Hyderabad Quashes Revaluation and Higher Duty on Iron Ore Exports

    CESTAT Hyderabad Quashes Revaluation and Higher Duty on Iron Ore Exports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 31.07.2025

    CESTAT Hyderabad Quashes Revaluation and Higher Duty on Iron Ore Exports

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has delivered a judgment that reinforces the principles of fair valuation and classification in export duty cases. The ruling, pronounced on July 28, 2025, in the appeals filed by M/s Atha Mines Pvt Ltd. and M/s Khatau Narbheram & Co., sets a precedent for exporters facing disputes over transaction value and classification of goods.

    Background of the Case

    The appellants challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, which imposed higher Basic Customs Duty (BCD) at 15% on iron ore lumps (more than 10mm) and re-determined the transaction value based on contemporaneous export values. ​ The appellants argued that the Department’s rejection of the declared transaction value and artificial segregation of iron ore lumps and fines were unjustified.

    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 Hyderabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Upholds Importer’s Right to Amend Bills of Entry under Section 149

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds Importer’s Right to Amend Bills of Entry under Section 149

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.07.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds Importer’s Right to Amend Bills of Entry under Section 149 ​

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s Akshar Telecom Pvt. ​ Ltd.. This decision has far-reaching implications for importers seeking amendments to Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ Let’s delve into the details of this case and its impact on the legal landscape.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Akshar Telecom Pvt. ​ Ltd., an importer and distributor of mobile phones, filed 180 Bills of Entry between February 2014 and October 2014. ​ At the time, the company paid Additional Duty of Customs at a higher rate of 6%, despite being eligible for a reduced rate of 1% under Notification No. ​ 12/2012-CE, provided Condition No. 16 was satisfied. ​ This condition stipulated that no credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 should have been availed for inputs or capital goods used in manufacturing the goods. ​

    The company later sought amendments to these Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act to claim the reduced duty rate and subsequently file for a refund under Section 27 of the Act. ​ However, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the request, citing finality of assessment and procedural limitations.

    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 Upholds Correct Tariff Classification of PVC Resin

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Correct Tariff Classification of PVC Resin

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.07.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Correct Tariff Classification of PVC Resin

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Arun Polymers vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate. This decision sheds light on the complexities of customs classification and the importance of adhering to specific tariff headings under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute revolved around the classification of imported goods described as ‘PVC Resin SP 660 Suspension Grade.’ The appellant, M/s Arun Polymers, classified the goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3904 2110, which pertains to “Poly (vinyl chloride) resins.” ​ This classification would entitle them to the benefit of Notification No. ​ 46/2011-Cus dated 1.6.2011. ​ However, the revenue authorities reclassified the goods under CTH 3904 1090, a residuary entry, and denied the benefit of the notification, demanding duty of Rs. ​ 22,38,097/- along with interest.

    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- No Confiscation under Section 111(m) for Wrong Classification

    CESTAT Delhi- No Confiscation under Section 111(m) for Wrong Classification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.07.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- No Confiscation under Section 111(m) for Wrong Classification ​

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has clarified that goods imported with a wrong classification or based on an ineligible exemption claim cannot be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal’s decision comes as a major relief for importers who often face penal actions due to technical misclassifications or incorrect exemption claims.

    Case Background

    M/s Raj Metals & Alloys, a manufacturer of aluminium ingots registered with the State Pollution Control Board, imported aluminium scrap described as “Thorn”, a term standardised by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), USA. The scrap was declared under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 76020010, which is applicable to freely importable aluminium scrap. However, authorities held that “Thorn” falls under CTI 76020090, a restricted item under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), and thus required an import license, which the importer did not possess.

    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 Ahmedabad Allows Customs Duty Refund on Coastal Vessel

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Allows Customs Duty Refund on Coastal Vessel

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.07.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Allows Customs Duty Refund on Coastal Vessel

    In a significant legal development, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has delivered a favorable judgment for Neha Shipping and Allied Services Pvt. Limited in their appeal against the recovery of Rs. ​ 11,05,908/- along with applicable interest. ​ The case revolved around the refund of excess customs duty paid during the coastal conversion of the vessel “MV Endurance.” ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute originated when Neha Shipping filed a refund claim for Rs. ​ 11,05,908/- after the final assessment of customs duty revealed a reduced liability compared to the provisional assessment. ​ While the Assistant Commissioner initially sanctioned the refund, the department challenged the decision, citing the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 18(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently remitted the case for re-examination, leading to the refund amount being transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the appellant’s alleged failure to prove that the burden of excess duty was not passed on.

    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 Ahmedabad

    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 Rejects Revenue’s Misdeclaration Allegation ​

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejects Revenue’s Misdeclaration Allegation ​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.07.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejects Revenue’s Misdeclaration Allegation ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s Maa Kali Traders concerning the classification and valuation of imported goods. The case revolved around whether the imported goods, declared as “Unwrought/Unrefined Zinc,” were misclassified as “Zinc Dross,” a restricted item under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). ​ The Tribunal’s decision highlights the importance of evidence-based adjudication and adherence to procedural norms in customs disputes.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Maa Kali Traders imported goods between January 2014 and December 2015, declaring them as “Unwrought/Unrefined Zinc” under CTH No. 79012090. The Revenue conducted chemical tests to ascertain the zinc content, which revealed a higher percentage of zinc than declared. ​ Based on these findings, the Assessing Officer issued an assessment order demanding differential duty of Rs. ​ 5,05,494/- along with interest, citing a higher assessable value. ​

    The importer challenged the valuation, arguing that the transaction value was arbitrarily enhanced without legal basis. ​ Simultaneously, the Revenue contended that the goods were misdeclared and should be classified as “Zinc Dross,” subject to import restrictions.

    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 Chennai Grants MRI Accessory Exemption to Philips India

    CESTAT Chennai Grants MRI Accessory Exemption to Philips India

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.07.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Grants MRI Accessory Exemption to Philips India

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Philips India Limited vs. ​ The Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo). ​ This case revolved around the classification and eligibility for customs duty exemptions of the Sonalleve MR HIFU KIT, a specialized medical device used in conjunction with MRI machines. ​ The ruling not only clarified the classification of the product but also reinforced the importance of adhering to the scope of Show Cause Notices in customs proceedings.

    Case Background

    M/s Philips India Limited had imported the Sonalleve MR HIFU KIT, declaring it as an accessory to MRI machines under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9018 13 00. ​ The company claimed concessional rates of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and Countervailing Duty (CVD) under Notification No. ​ 21/2002-Cus and Notification No. ​ 6/2006-CE, respectively. ​ However, the customs department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that the imported goods were not accessories to MRI machines and denied the claimed exemptions. ​ The original authority upheld this view, leading to the confirmation of differential duty along with interest.

    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 Mumbai Quashes ₹4.6 Crore Anti-Dumping Duty Demand

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes ₹4.6 Crore Anti-Dumping Duty Demand

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes ₹4.6 Crore Anti-Dumping Duty Demand

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled in favor of Neo Wheels Ltd. and its representatives, in a case concerning alleged evasion of anti-dumping duty on aluminum alloy wheels imported from China. The judgment, delivered on July 24, 2025, brings clarity to the complex issue of anti-dumping duty and the validity of certificates of origin.

    Background of the Case

    Neo Wheels Ltd., a manufacturer of alloy wheels, imports semi-finished aluminum alloy wheels from Taiwan. The case arose from allegations that the company had routed imports through Taiwan to evade anti-dumping duty imposed on aluminum alloy wheels originating from China. ​ The anti-dumping duty was provisionally imposed in 2014 and later definitively imposed in 2015 at USD 2.15 per KG.

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation, scrutinizing 30 bills of entry filed by Neo Wheels Ltd. between December 5, 2014, and February 5, 2017. ​ The investigation alleged that the company had misdeclared the country of origin and evaded anti-dumping duty amounting to Rs. 4.62 crore. ​ Penalties were also proposed against the company and its representatives.

    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