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 Mumbai Quashes β‚Ή2.78 Cr Customs Duty Demand on Road Machinery Import

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes β‚Ή2.78 Cr Customs Duty Demand on Road Machinery Import

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 14.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes β‚Ή2.78 Cr Customs Duty Demand on Road Machinery Import

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench has quashed the duty demand of β‚Ή2.78 Crores, penalties, and confiscation order against M/s Villayati Ram Mittal and its Director. The Tribunal held that the company had not violated the conditions of Serial No. 230 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002, which allowed exemption from customs duty on road construction equipment.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Villayati Ram Mittal had imported two piling rigs under Bill of Entry dated 10.07.2003, claiming nil customs duty under Sl. No. 230 of the said notification. The exemption was subject to conditions listed in Condition No. 40, which required:

    • The importer to be a contractor for road construction awarded by NHAI or PWD;
    • The imported goods to be used exclusively for road construction;
    • No sale or disposal of the goods for five years from importation.

    The rigs were later found in possession of third parties (M/s QUIPPO and M/s Bhumi Developers), leading to a show cause notice dated 13.05.2008 alleging violation of exemption conditions.

    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 Chandigarh- Customs Must Pay Interest on Late Refunds

    CESTAT Chandigarh- Customs Must Pay Interest on Late Refunds

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.06.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh- Customs Must Pay Interest on Late Refunds

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has delivered a pivotal ruling in favor of leading textile exporters M/s Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. and Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd., dismissing five appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana. The matter involved claims for interest on delayed refund of customs duties wrongly paid on imports of polyester blankets from China under protest.

    The Tribunal upheld that the interest is payable from three months after the date of the original refund application, and not from the date of a later tribunal or appellate decision, setting a clear precedent.

    Case Background

    • The respondents had imported polyester mink blankets (CTH 63014000) and paid Countervailing Duty (CVD) under protest.
    • They argued that CVD was not leviable as such domestic products were exempt under Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004.
    • Though customs duty was paid at the time of import, refund claims were filed following a favorable CESTAT order dated 02.04.2019.
    • The department later sanctioned the refund but denied interest, contending it was processed within three months of the tribunal’s decision.

    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 Hyderabad Overrules Customs Classification of Medical Cartridges and Analysers

    CESTAT Hyderabad Overrules Customs Classification of Medical Cartridges and Analysers

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.06.2025

    CESTAT Hyderabad Overrules Customs Classification of Medical Cartridges and Analysers

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has delivered a landmark decision in favor of M/s Sandor Medicaids Pvt. Ltd., reclassifying their I-Stat Portable Blood Gas Analyser and test cartridges under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9027, and not under 9018 as proposed by customs.

    The decision not only sets aside the customs duty demand of approximately β‚Ή3.47 crore but also clears all associated interest and penalty, bringing long-awaited clarity on the classification of point-of-care diagnostic devices.

    About the Disputed Goods

    • Product: I-Stat Portable Blood Gas Analyser and its single-use diagnostic cartridges
    • Use: Performs point-of-care blood diagnostics for critical parameters like pH, electrolytes, glucose, creatinine, and lactate levels
    • Importer: M/s Sandor Medicaids Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad
    • Period of Import: 2014–15 to 2016–17

    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 Mumbai set aside the Confiscation of diamonds and duty demand on capital goods

    CESTAT Mumbai set aside the Confiscation of diamonds and duty demand on capital goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai set aside the Confiscation of diamonds and duty demand on capital goods

    In a major relief to M/s Neysa Jewellery Ltd. (formerly Shreeji Jewellery Ltd.) and its associated individuals, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has set aside the confiscation, customs duty demand, and penalties levied by the Commissioner of Customs (General)-V, Mumbai. The ruling relates to alleged substitution and shortage of imported diamonds under the Export Oriented Unit (EOU) operations in SEEPZ, Mumbai.

    Background of the Case

    The case dates back to March 1998, when Customs officials intercepted an autorickshaw leaving the SEEPZ premises and found electronic goods. This led to a detailed investigation at the premises of Neysa Jewellery Ltd., revealing an alleged shortage of 89.15 carats of imported diamonds and a seizure of 1095.48 carats, allegedly substituted to mask the shortfall. Customs initiated proceedings based on suspicion of diversion and misuse of duty-free imports. Several show cause notices, adjudication orders, and remand proceedings followed for over two decades, culminating in the recent 2023 decision.

    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 Mumbai Delivers Sharp Rebuke in Customs Classification Dispute

    CESTAT Mumbai Delivers Sharp Rebuke in Customs Classification Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 12.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Delivers Sharp Rebuke in Customs Classification Dispute

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has allowed the appeals filed by Moti International, and Sunders International, setting aside the β‚Ή30+ crore duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. The Tribunal held that mere import of LED panels and associated components does not constitute import of complete television sets, and thus, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus remains valid.

    Background of the Case

    The case arose from a detailed investigation initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which alleged that the appellants were importing complete television sets in disassembled form to evade customs duties. The DRI issued multiple show cause notices spanning over three years, culminating in a consolidated Order-in-Original dated 05 November 2019, passed by the Commissioner (NS-V), Nhava Sheva, which:

    • Re-classified 171 bills of entry filed between March 2014 and January 2016,
    • Demanded β‚Ή30.72 crore in differential duty under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962,
    • Imposed penalties of equal amount under Section 114A, and
    • Ordered confiscation of goods valued at β‚Ή80 crore under Section 111(m).

    The central allegation was that the appellants imported LED panels and parts in a manner that effectively constituted complete television sets, which were then rebranded and sold as Sony or Samsung without authorization.

    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 Kolkata- Customs Cannot Confiscate Lawfully Purchased Foreign Gold

    CESTAT Kolkata- Customs Cannot Confiscate Lawfully Purchased Foreign Gold

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 12.06.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata- Customs Cannot Confiscate Lawfully Purchased Foreign Gold

    In a significant relief to four appellants, CESTAT Kolkata has set aside the absolute confiscation of two gold bars of foreign origin and the accompanying penalties imposed by the Customs (Preventive) authorities. The judgment, delivered on June 11, 2025, underscores the importance of procedural compliance under the Customs Act, 1962 and validates the appellants’ contention of lawful procurement.

    Background of the Case

    The case stemmed from a seizure in 2013 of two foreign-marked gold bars (Switzerland and Emirates markings) from two individuals, at Shiv Tala Street, Kolkata. The two were allegedly acting on instructions from their employer, Appellant, a local jeweller.

    Following investigation and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, Customs Authorities initiated proceedings for:

    • Confiscation under Sections 111(b) and 111(d),
    • Penalties under Section 112 for all four individuals,
    • And penalties under Section 114AA on Appellants for allegedly using fabricated documents.

    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 Ahmedabad Quashes Duty Demand on MEIS/SEIS Scrip Imports

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Quashes Duty Demand on MEIS/SEIS Scrip Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 12.06.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Quashes Duty Demand on MEIS/SEIS Scrip Imports

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, the appeals filed by Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. and Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. have been allowed, offering significant clarity on the non-applicability of Education Cess (EC), Secondary and Higher Education Cess (SHEC), and Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) where the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) is Nil under the MEIS/SEIS scrip-based imports.

    This ruling reiterates the principle that when customs duty is exempted, any surcharge or cess linked as a percentage to that duty also becomes zero. The case carries serious implications for importers using duty credit scrips under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), who had been facing retrospective demands from Customs authorities.

    Case Background

    • Appellant: Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd.
    • Co-Appellant: Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd.
    • Respondent: Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
    • Issue: Whether EC, SHEC, and SWS can be validly debited from MEIS/SEIS scrips when BCD was Nil.

    The Customs authorities demanded recovery of duties on the grounds that the debit of EC/SHEC/SWS from duty credit scrips was impermissible, and should have been paid in cash. It also invoked the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) and imposed penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

    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

  • BIS can be enforced through QCO only on Scheduled Industry under the IDR Act, 1951

    BIS can be enforced through QCO only on Scheduled Industry under the IDR Act, 1951

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.06.2025

    BIS can be enforced through QCO only on Scheduled Industry under the IDR Act, 1951

    The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (IDRA) is a cornerstone in the legal and regulatory architecture of industrial policy in India. Enacted on 8th October 1951, the Act was passed under Entry 52 of the Union List of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Central Government to regulate industries declared by Parliament to be under its control in public interest.

    The IDRA laid the legislative foundation for India’s planned economic growth in the post-independence era. It served as the backbone of industrial licensing, control, and regulation, commonly referred to as the β€œLicense Raj.”

    Even though economic liberalization in 1991 significantly relaxed licensing controls, the Act continues to apply in critical sectors such as defence, hazardous chemicals, and atomic energy, and was last substantively amended in 2016.

    Objectives of the Act

    The key objectives of the IDRA, 1951 include:

    • Government intervention in mismanaged or non-performing industrial units
    • Regulation and development of scheduled industries in accordance with national policy
    • Equitable distribution of resources and balanced regional development
    • Control over production, quality, pricing, and distribution of essential industrial goods
    • Preventing monopolistic and unfair trade practices

    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: IDRA Act, 1951 & BIS Act, 2016 (DPIIT/BIS)

    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- SCMTR Not Enforceable at Time of Shipment

    CESTAT Mumbai- SCMTR Not Enforceable at Time of Shipment

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai- SCMTR Not Enforceable at Time of Shipment

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, quashed a punitive order issued by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Nhava Sheva, against Aiyer Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd., citing improper application of the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transshipment Regulations, 2018 (SCMTR) and misinterpretation of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    The appeal stemmed from a penalty order issued against Aiyer Shipping Agency in connection with two shipping bills dated 07.01.2022, involving export of 297.541 MTs of SHG Jumbo Zinc by Hindustan Zinc Ltd. The exporter had used Direct Port Entry (DPE) and e-sealing, but due to procedural timing, the Let Export Order (LEO) was obtained after the vessel β€˜MV Thorsky’ had sailed on 09.01.2022. This resulted in an EGM error: β€œLEO date greater than sailing date”.

    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- Clarifying the Scope of Customs Exemption for MIMO-Based Devices

    CESTAT Chennai- Clarifying the Scope of Customs Exemption for MIMO-Based Devices

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai- Clarifying the Scope of Customs Exemption for MIMO-Based Devices

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has ruled in favor of M/s Inflow Technologies Pvt. Ltd., granting them exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., despite their imported Wireless Access Points (WAPs) employing MIMO technology. The Tribunal relied heavily on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd., asserting that the term β€œMIMO and LTE Products” must be read conjunctively, not disjunctively.

    Case Background

    • Appellant: Inflow Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
    • Product in Question: Wireless Access Points (WAPs) imported between July 2014 and June 2017.
    • Classification: Under CTI 8517 6990 (apparatus for transmission/reception of data).
    • Claimed Exemption: Under Sl. No. 13 of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., which provides for β€˜nil’ rate of BCD for eligible telecom goods.
    • Dispute: The Commissioner rejected the exemption claim stating that since the WAPs used MIMO technology, they were excluded under Sl. No. 13(iv), which excluded β€œMIMO and LTE Products.”

    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 Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com