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: #IndianCustoms

  • CESTAT Kolkata- Higher Customs Duty Held Unenforceable Due to Delay in Notification Publication

    CESTAT Kolkata- Higher Customs Duty Held Unenforceable Due to Delay in Notification Publication

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.05.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata- Higher Customs Duty Held Unenforceable Due to Delay in Notification Publication

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, ruled in favour of M/s Emami Agrotech Ltd. by setting aside the demand for differential customs duty on imported crude palm oil. The case involved a dispute over the applicable date for a notification that raised Basic Customs Duty (BCD) from 15% to 30%.

    Case Background:

    • Emami imported crude palm oil in November 2017 via four Bills of Entry dated 16.11.2017.
    • Entry inward for the consignments was granted on 18.11.2017 and 19.11.2017.
    • Notification No. 87/2017-Customs dated 17.11.2017, which increased BCD to 30%, was only published in the Official Gazette on 20.11.2017.
    • Customs demanded higher duty based on the entry inward date.
    • Emami paid the higher duty under protest and later appealed the assessment.

    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 Bangalore- Customs directed to restore the full sale value of the auctioned goods

    CESTAT Bangalore- Customs directed to restore the full sale value of the auctioned goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.05.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- Customs directed to restore the full sale value of the auctioned goods

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench, in its Final Order No. 20530/2025 dated 30 April 2025, has ruled in favour of M/s. Wipro Ltd., allowing restitution of value for imported goods that were auctioned by the Revenue despite the matter being sub judice.

    Case Background:

    • Appellant: M/s. Wipro Ltd., Bangalore
    • Goods: Service application module imported from Cisco Systems, Mexico
    • Declared Value: USD 26,400
    • Revenue’s Enhancement: Value re-determined to USD 1,10,000 based on list price of similar goods
    • Penalty Imposed: Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 112(a) of Customs Act
    • Redemption Fine: Rs. 50,000 under Section 125
    • Goods Status: Auctioned in 2013 while appeal was pending

    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

  • Delhi High Court Quashes Detention of Gold Kada

    Delhi High Court Quashes Detention of Gold Kada

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.05.2025

    Delhi High Court Quashes Detention of Gold Kada

    The Delhi High Court in Daljeet Singh v. Commissioner of Customs [W.P.(C) 5040/2025], quashed the detention of a 22-carat gold kada worn by the petitioner, ruling that it qualifies as a personal effect under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and cannot be confiscated without due process.

    Case Background:

    • Petitioner: Daljeet Singh, a Sikh tourist arriving from Dubai on 29 November 2024.
    • Item Detained: 22-carat gold kada (60 grams) worn by the petitioner.
    • Customs Action: Detained the kada at IGI Airport, New Delhi under Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/29-11-2024/005522.

    Legal Issues Raised:

    1. Whether the gold kada qualifies as a personal effect under Baggage Rules, 2016.
    2. Whether a pre-printed waiver form signed by the petitioner can legally substitute a show cause notice (SCN) and personal hearing under Section 124 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: 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

  • Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.05.2025

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

    In a landmark Constitution Bench judgment delivered on 30 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (2025 INSC 605) addressed two pivotal legal concerns that had long vexed India’s arbitration ecosystem:

    1. Whether courts have the power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and
    2. Whether the power under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked to grant complete justice in arbitration-related disputes.

    The Constitution Bench decisively ruled that courts do possess limited power to modify arbitral awards. Furthermore, the Court held that in appropriate cases, Article 142 can be invoked to modify awards where doing so avoids unnecessary remand and protracted arbitration.

    Context: The Precedent Conflict

    Earlier rulings, such as Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021), had suggested that courts could only set aside or remand awardsβ€”not modify themβ€”under Section 34. This created an enforcement challenge where minor or severable defects in arbitral awards required the parties to re-commence lengthy arbitration proceedings.

    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: Supreme 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 New Delhi- The reassessment was held to be invalid and legally unsustainable

    CESTAT New Delhi- The reassessment was held to be invalid and legally unsustainable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.05.2025

    CESTAT New Delhi- The reassessment was held to be invalid and legally unsustainable

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, ruled in favour of M/s Trina Steelcarb Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a reassessment order that enhanced the assessable value of imported goods without issuing a speaking order as mandated under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    CESTAT’s Key Observations:

    1. Violation of Section 17(5): The Tribunal found that the assessing officer failed to issue a speaking order despite the reassessment being contrary to the importer’s declared self-assessment and without written acceptance. Section 17(5) mandates issuance of a speaking order within 15 days in such cases.

    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 New 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 New Delhi- SVB Loading Rejected as Legally Unsustainable

    CESTAT New Delhi- SVB Loading Rejected as Legally Unsustainable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.05.2025

    CESTAT New Delhi- SVB Loading Rejected as Legally Unsustainable

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowed the appeal of M/s Rays Engineering Works against the re-assessment of customs duty on imported goods. The Tribunal held that the enhancement of assessable value based on 13% “SVB loading” was illegal and violative of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background:

    • The appellant declared the value of goods at US$ 1.25/kg for slew gear and US$ 0.67/kg for bucket tooth.
    • The Assessing Officer enhanced the declared value by 13% citing SVB loading, without issuing a speaking order under Section 17(5).
    • Appellant paid the enhanced duty but did not provide written acceptance of the reassessment.

    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 New 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 Bangalore held that there was no justification to reject the transaction value

    CESTAT Bangalore held that there was no justification to reject the transaction value

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.05.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore held that there was no justification to reject the transaction value

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Regional Bench Bangalore, has allowed the appeal filed by M/s K V Joshy & C K Paul against the re-determined customs valuation of imported refillable plastic gas lighters from China. In Final Order No. 20531/2025 dated 30 April 2025, the Tribunal ruled that the rejection of transaction value was unjustified due to lack of comparable imports and procedural lapses.

    Case Background:

    • The appellants imported refillable plastic gas lighters under Bill of Entry No. 8950081 dated 17.04.2015.
    • Customs authorities alleged undervaluation based on email communications and proforma invoices showing higher values for different branded products.
    • The Adjudicating Authority re-determined the value and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) later upheld the reassessment but set aside penalty under Section 114AA.
    • The matter reached CESTAT challenging the basis for rejecting declared values.

    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 Mumbai Partially Relieves Appellants in Cigarette Smuggling Case: Penalty Under Section 112(a) Quashed, Retained Under Section 112(b)

    CESTAT Mumbai Partially Relieves Appellants in Cigarette Smuggling Case: Penalty Under Section 112(a) Quashed, Retained Under Section 112(b)

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.05.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Partially Relieves Appellants in Cigarette Smuggling Case: Penalty Under Section 112(a) Quashed, Retained Under Section 112(b)

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench, delivered a nuanced verdict in Customs Appeal Nos. 87171 and 87172 of 2019 involving allegations of illegal import and distribution of foreign-origin cigarettes in violation of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COPTA), 2003.

    Background:

    • The Air Intelligence Unit (AIU), CSI Airport Customs, intercepted a consignment containing 3 lakh cigarette sticks branded as β€œNew Light Cigarettes WIN” valued at β‚Ή15 lakhs.
    • The consignment, imported from Myanmar via the North-East, did not comply with packaging norms under COPTA and lacked valid import documents.
    • Investigation revealed a network involving multiple individuals, including Appellant (owner of M/s Megha Collection) and his employee Appellant, who were implicated in receiving and further distributing such consignments.

    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 Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    CESTAT Kolkata Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.05.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, set aside a massive β‚Ή70 crore customs duty demand raised against M/s Kalyani Solvent Pvt. Ltd. for importing crude rice bran oil. The tribunal held that the company was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (as amended), even though the acid content of the imported oil exceeded 20%.

    Background:

    M/s Kalyani Solvent Pvt. Ltd., a leading edible oil processor supplying to brands like Patanjali, had imported 104 consignments of crude rice bran oil between October 2010 and February 2012 under CTH 1515 9091, claiming duty exemption. Customs authorities later issued a Show Cause Notice in 2013 alleging the imports were ineligible for exemption due to high acid content, seeking recovery of β‚Ή70 crore.

    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 Bangalore- Quick Lime Imports by JSW Steel Classifiable Under Chapter 25

    CESTAT Bangalore- Quick Lime Imports by JSW Steel Classifiable Under Chapter 25

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.05.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- Quick Lime Imports by JSW Steel Classifiable Under Chapter 25

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, allowed the appeal of M/s JSW Steel Limited, Salem, quashing the differential customs duty demand of over Rs. 75 lakh and ruling that “Quick Lime” is correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2522 10 00.

    Case Background:

    • JSW Steel imported “Quick Lime Powder” under 8 Bills of Entry between September and November 2015.
    • The goods were initially assessed provisionally under CTH 2522 1000, with standard duty payments.
    • Based on test results indicating 92.2% purity of calcium oxide, Revenue reclassified the product under CTH 2825 9090 (for pure calcium oxide) and raised a demand of Rs. 75,99,475 plus 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 Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com