Tag: #IndianLaw

  • β€œIntellectual Property Laws are protected under Indian Customs Border Control Laws”

    β€œIntellectual Property Laws are protected under Indian Customs Border Control Laws”

    Logo of Aadrikaa Law Offices featuring a gold emblem with scales, accompanied by the text 'Aadrikaa Law Offices (ALO) Your Own Law Office' on a dark red background.

    Date: 04.02.2026

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    ​​ ​​  β€‹  β€‹ ​​ ​

    This short Article provides an overview of the Indian Customs’ measures for protecting Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) at the border. ​ It outlines the procedures, laws, and rules for IPR registration, enforcement, interdiction, determination, and disposal of infringing goods. ​

    Types of IPRs Protected by Customs ​

    • Trademarks Act, 1999 ​
    • Patents Act, 1970 ​
    • Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 ​
    • Copyright Act, 1957 ​
    • Designs Act, 2000 ​
    • Legal Basis: Section 11 of the Customs Act empowers the Central Government to prohibit import/export of goods violating IPRs. ​
    • Notification: Notification No. ​ 51/2010-Cus. (NT) prohibits the import of goods infringing IPRs. ​
    • Conditions: Prohibition is subject to the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 enforced through M.F. (D.R.) Notification No. 47/2007-Cus. (N.T.) dated 8th May, 2007 as amended.

    (a) “goods infringing intellectual property rights” means any goods which are made, reproduced, put into circulation or otherwise used in breach of the intellectual property laws in India or outside India and without the consent of the right holder or a person duly authorized to do so by the right holder;

    (b) “intellectual property” means a copyright as defined in the Copyright Act, 1957, trade mark as defined in the Trade Marks Act,1999, [* * * *] design as defined in the Designs Act, 2000 and geographical indications as defined in the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999;

    (c) “Intellectual property law” means the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trade Marks Act,1999, [* * * *] the Designs Act, 2000 or the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999;

    (d) “right holder” means a natural person or a legal entity, which according to the laws in force is to be regarded as the owner of protected intellectual property right, its successors in title, or its duly authorized exclusive licensee as well as an individual, a corporation or an association authorized by any of the aforesaid persons to protect its rights.

    • Online Application: Submit applications at https://ipr.icegate.gov.in/IPR/homePage
    • Required Documents:
      • Registration certificate or proof of ownership. ​
      • Demand draft details/Online Payment through ICEGATE Portal/Payment Proof of INR 2000.00 only
      • Power of Attorney in the name of the Right Holder or the Authorized representative. ​
      • Statement of exclusivity. ​
      • Digital images of genuine and infringing goods. ​
      • IEC code. ​
      • Description of geographical indications (if applicable). ​

    Indemnity Bond

    • Protects Customs authorities from liability for detaining goods suspected of infringement. ​

    General Bond vs. Centralized Bond

    • General Bond: Requires consignment-specific bonds for each interdiction. ​
    • Centralized Bond: A running bond applicable across India, with a single Bond Registration Number (BRN) for all rights registered by the rights holder. ​

    Detention of Suspected Infringing Goods ​

    • Notification: Customs informs the importer and rights holder of the detention. ​
    • Maximum Detention Period for deciding the matter: 10 working days for regular goods; 3 working days for perishable goods. (Rule 7)
    • (1) Where upon determination by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, it is found that the goods detained or seized have infringed intellectual property rights, and have been confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and no legal proceedings are pending in relation to such determination, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall, destroy the goods under official supervision or dispose them outside the normal channels of commerce after obtaining ‘no objection’ or concurrence of the right holder or his authorized representative :
    • Provided that if the right holder or his authorized representative does not oppose or react to the mode of disposal as proposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, within twenty working days after having been informed, or within such extended period as may have been granted by the Commissioner at the request of the right holder, not exceeding another twenty working days, he shall be deemed to have concurred with the mode of disposal as proposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be :
    • Provided further that the costs toward destruction, demurrage and detention charges incurred till the time of destruction or disposal, as the case may be, shall be borne by the right holder.
    • (2) There shall not be allowed the re-exportation of the goods infringing intellectual property rights in an unaltered state.
    • (3) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, may on his own, or at the request of the right holder, retain samples of goods infringing intellectual property rights prior to their destruction or disposal and provide the same to the right holder or importer if such samples are needed as evidence in pending or future litigation.
    • Goods of a non-commercial nature contained in personal baggage or sent in small consignments intended for personal use of the importer are not subject to the above Rules.
    • Customs can suspend clearance of goods on its own initiative if there is prima facie evidence of infringement. Or at the written request of the Rights holder, as the case maybe.
    • Rights holder must comply with recordable requirements within 5 days. ​
    • Show Cause Notice: Issued to the importer and shared with the rights holder. ​
    • Adjudication: Includes importer’s reply and personal hearing. ​
    • Confiscation: If goods are found infringing, they are confiscated. ​
    • Process: Confiscated goods are destroyed or disposed of outside normal commerce channels. ​
    • Rights Holder’s Consent: Required for destruction/disposal. ​
    • Samples: Provided to the rights holder upon request. ​

    Informing Customs of Infringing Consignments ​

    • Rights holders can notify Customs via email, fax, or post at the relevant Customs Station or Risk Management Division. ​

    This Short Article serves as a comprehensive guide for rights holders, Customs officers, importers, and other stakeholders involved in IPR enforcement at Indian borders. ​

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Handy Download:

  • β€œCAAR New Delhi Clarifies Classification of Smartphone Window Glass as β€˜Parts’ under CTH 8529”

    β€œCAAR New Delhi Clarifies Classification of Smartphone Window Glass as β€˜Parts’ under CTH 8529”

    Logo of Aadrikaa Law Offices featuring a gold design with scales of justice on a maroon background, including the text 'Your Own Law Office' and the website URL.

    Date: 30.01.2026

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    ​​ ​​  β€‹  β€‹ ​​ ​

    The ruling concerns an application filed by M/s. Samsung Display Noida Private Limited before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), New Delhi, seeking clarity on the tariff classification of imported β€œWindow Glass” used in the manufacture of display assemblies for mobile phones and tablets.

    The applicant argued that the product is not merely safety glass but an integral and indispensable component of the display assembly, providing protection, structural stability, optical clarity, and user interaction interface.

    Two competing tariff headings were examined:

    • CTH 7007 – Safety glass (toughened or laminated)
    • CTH 8529 – Parts suitable for use solely or principally with apparatus of headings 8525–8528

    After analysing the product’s function, industry usage, and HSN explanatory notes, the Authority concluded that the Window Glass functions as a part of the display assembly rather than standalone safety glass and therefore merits classification under CTH 8529 90 90 (β€œOther”).

    Legal / Statutory Provisions Referred

    1. Section 28E(c), Customs Act, 1962 β€” Defines β€œapplicant” eligible to seek an advance ruling.
    2. Section 28H β€” Governs the procedure for filing advance ruling applications.
    3. Section 28-I(2) β€” Bars admission where the issue is pending before any customs authority or court.
    4. Section 12, Customs Act, 1962 β€” Charging provision for levy of customs duty.
    5. General Rules for Interpretation (GIR) β€” Classification must follow headings, section notes, and chapter notes; Rule 3(c) applies when goods are equally classifiable.
    6. Section XVI Note 2(b) β€” Parts suitable for use solely or principally with a specific machine are classified with that machine.
    7. HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 7007 and 8529 β€” Provide interpretative guidance on β€œsafety glass” versus β€œparts of apparatus.”

    Judicial Citations Referred:

    1. Saurashtra Chemicals v. Collector of Customs, 1997 (95) ELT 455 (SC)

    Held that section and chapter notes override headings, establishing hierarchy in tariff interpretation.

    2. O.K. Play (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi III, 2005 (180) ELT 300 (SC)

    Recognised the HSN as a dependable guide for resolving classification disputes.

    3. I.M.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2010 (258) ELT 321 (SC)

    Confirmed that HSN explanatory notes carry persuasive value in tariff interpretation.

    4. CC v. Gajra Beveling Electronics Ltd., 2005 (188) ELT 352 (SC)

    Reaffirmed reliance on HSN where domestic tariff mirrors international nomenclature.

    5. CCE v. Phil Corporation Ltd., 2008 (223) ELT 9 (SC)

    Held that classification must consider functional characteristics of goods.

    6. CAAR Mumbai Ruling β€” M/s Online Instruments India Pvt. Ltd. (01.05.2025)

    Display cover glass designed solely for Interactive Flat Panel Displays classified under CTH 8529, not 7007.

    Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Ruling

    • Functional test prevails over material composition in classification.
    • Goods forming an inseparable part of a larger apparatus should be classified as parts.
    • HSN explanatory notes remain a critical interpretative tool.
    • When dual classification is possible, GIR and section notes guide the final outcome.
    • Industry and commercial understanding can influence classification.

    Order Issued

    The CAAR held that the imported Window Glass is an integral component of the display assembly used in mobile phones and is therefore classifiable under CTH 8529 90 90 rather than CTH 7007.

    This ruling is strategically important for the electronics manufacturing ecosystem, particularly for companies operating under India’s PLI-driven mobile manufacturing supply chains.

    Why the ruling matters:

    • It reinforces the β€œsole or principal use” doctrine for parts classification.
    • Prevents revenue authorities from adopting a narrow, material-based approach.
    • Provides certainty for importers of high-value electronic components.
    • Aligns Indian classification with global HSN interpretation β€” reducing litigation risk.

    Possible Future Impact:

    The decision may influence classification disputes involving touch panels, cover glass, OLED layers, and display modules, where authorities often attempt classification under generic glass headings.

    Caution:

    Since advance rulings are binding only on the applicant and jurisdictional officers, broader applicability will depend on departmental acceptance or appellate affirmation.

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

  • 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

    Date: 05.05.2025

    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%.

    • 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.

    Handy Download:

  • 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

    Date: 05.05.2025

    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

    Handy Download:

  • Delhi High Court Quashes Detention of Gold Kada

    Delhi High Court Quashes Detention of Gold Kada

    Date: 05.05.2025

    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.

    • 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.
    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.

    Handy Download:

  • 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

    Date: 05.05.2025

    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.

    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.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT New Delhi- SVB Loading Rejected as Legally Unsustainable

    CESTAT New Delhi- SVB Loading Rejected as Legally Unsustainable

    Date: 02.05.2025

    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.

    • 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.

    Handy Download:

  • 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

    Date: 02.05.2025

    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.

    • 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.

    Handy Download:

  • Supreme Court Constitution Bench Affirms Limited Court Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on Severability Doctrine

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Affirms Limited Court Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on Severability Doctrine

    Date: 01.05.2025

    In a landmark Constitution Bench judgment dated 30 April 2025 (Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., 2025 INSC 605), the Supreme Court of India has decisively held that Indian courts possess a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

    The court affirmed that while Section 34 does not explicitly provide for modification, courts can:

    • Modify an award if the invalid portion is severable from the valid portion.
    • Correct clerical, typographical, or computational errors.
    • Adjust post-award interest, as prescribed under Section 31(7)(b).
    • Exercise modification under Article 142 of the Constitution in rare cases to do complete justice.

    Handy Download:

  • 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)

    Date: 01.05.2025

    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.

    • 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.

    Handy Download: