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: #Legal

  • CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Bank Guarantee Condition for Provisional Release of Seized Betel Nuts

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Bank Guarantee Condition for Provisional Release of Seized Betel Nuts

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.07.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Bank Guarantee Condition for Provisional Release of Seized Betel Nuts

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, in Final Order No. 70433/2025 dated 30.06.2025, ruled in favour of M/s B P Wire Industry, setting aside the condition of furnishing bank guarantees for the provisional release of seized betel nuts and betel nut powder. The case arose out of alleged misdeclaration and subsequent seizure under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    M/s B P Wire Industry, a Star Export House, had imported betel nuts under the MOOWR Scheme for the manufacture and export of flavoured supari. These goods were detained and later seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the grounds of alleged misdeclaration under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act for imports, and under Section 118(i) for exports.

    The DRI later withdrew its objection to the provisional release and communicated “No Objection” via a letter dated 25.09.2024. However, the Commissioner (Customs Preventive), Lucknow, imposed a stringent bank guarantee condition for provisional release, leading the appellant to approach the Delhi High Court and then CESTAT.

    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 Allahabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Upholds SAD Refund & Latest Customs Notification

    Delhi High Court Upholds SAD Refund & Latest Customs Notification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.06.2025

    Delhi High Court Upholds SAD Refund & Latest Customs Notification

    The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Customs (ICD Import) vs. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd., has upheld the right of the importer to claim refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the one-year limitation condition prescribed in Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, as amended.

    The Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the CESTAT’s decision, marking a key precedent for SAD refund claims and interpretation of refund limitations under customs notifications.

    Case Background

    • Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. had imported goods on payment of Special Additional Duty (SAD) and later sold them in the domestic market, paying VAT/CST, as required under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.
    • The company sought refund of SAD under the said notification but filed claims beyond the one-year period stipulated by the 2008 amendment to the notification (Notification No. 93/2008-Cus).
    • The Department rejected the refund, citing delay, leading to the matter being contested before CESTAT, which allowed the refund.
    • The Department filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court, relying on the Bombay High Court’s ruling in CMS Info Systems Ltd. v. UOI [2017 (349) ELT 236 (Bom)], which had upheld the one-year limitation.

    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

  • CESTAT Kolkata Ruling in Favour of Global Entrade on Project Import Dispute

    CESTAT Kolkata Ruling in Favour of Global Entrade on Project Import Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.06.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Ruling in Favour of Global Entrade on Project Import Dispute

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has quashed a β‚Ή12.95 lakh customs duty demand raised against M/s Global Entrade, an importer based in Assam, under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 (PIR 1986). The Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the customs department was time-barred, having been served nearly six years after the relevant import transaction.

    Case Background

    M/s Global Entrade had registered a contract with the customs authorities for importing machinery to establish a cold storage facility in Guwahati. The contract was registered under Project Import Registration No. S37(P)PROJ-08/2014 A(6), and was backed by Essentiality Certificates from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, qualifying the import for concessional duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Customs, Entry Sl. No. 515.

    The machinery was imported via Bill of Entry No. 7356551 dated 12.11.2014, and provisional assessment was completed with applicable 5% Basic Customs Duty and NIL CVD, as per the project import benefit.

    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 Upholds Classification of Tomato Dry Flavour Under CTH 3302

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Tomato Dry Flavour Under CTH 3302

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Tomato Dry Flavour Under CTH 3302

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has allowed the appeal of M/s Symrise Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the imported product β€œTomato Dry Flavour” is correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3302 1010 as an odoriferous substance, and not under CTH 2106 9060 as previously contended by customs authorities.

    The Tribunal’s Final Order No. 40499/2023 dated 28.06.2023, sets aside the earlier denial of concessional basic customs duty (BCD) under Notification No. 21/2002, Sl. No. 119.

    Background of the Case

    • Symrise Pvt. Ltd. imported Tomato Dry Flavour and classified it under CTH 3302 1010, claiming a 10% BCD exemption.
    • The Revenue reclassified the product under CTH 2106 9060 (food preparations not elsewhere specified), triggering a demand for differential duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    • The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reclassification, prompting the present appeal before CESTAT.

    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 Allahabad- Customs Broker Not Liable for Importer’s Valuation

    CESTAT Allahabad- Customs Broker Not Liable for Importer’s Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.06.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad- Customs Broker Not Liable for Importer’s Valuation

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, vide Final Order No. 70034/2025 dated 09 January 2025, has set aside the penalty imposed on M/s HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd., a licensed Customs Broker, in a case alleging under-valuation of goods imported by M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises.

    The Tribunal reiterated that a Customs Broker cannot be held liable for valuation disputes where bills of entry are filed strictly based on documents submitted by the importer.

    Background of the Case

    • HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd., holding a CHA licence (No. R07/2004), filed Bills of Entry on behalf of M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises.
    • Customs alleged undervaluation, comparing declared value (USD 1.02/sq. meter) with previously accepted value (USD 1.24/sq. meter).
    • The importer accepted the enhanced valuation during investigation and paid differential duties, interest, and penalties.
    • Penalties of β‚Ή10,000 and β‚Ή5,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were imposed on HIM Logistics by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Noida.

    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 Allahabad

    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- No Misdeclaration in Buff Sole Leather Export

    CESTAT Chennai- No Misdeclaration in Buff Sole Leather Export

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai- No Misdeclaration in Buff Sole Leather Export

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, in its Final Order No. 40667/2025 dated 25.06.2025, ruled in favour of M/s. Welfare Leather Co. by setting aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on the alleged misdeclaration of leather goods.

    Background:

    Welfare Leather had filed a drawback shipping bill for the export of Buff Sole Leather, which was subjected to inspection and testing by the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI). The CLRI report concluded that the leather did not conform to the prescribed thickness (less than 3mm) and apparent density (less than 0.9 gm/cc) as per DGFT Public Notice No. 21/2009-14 dated 01.12.2009.

    Relying on this report, the adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the goods valued at β‚Ή3,02,206.39, imposed a redemption fine of β‚Ή25,000 under Section 125 of the Customs Act, and levied a penalty of β‚Ή5,000 under Section 114(ii).

    The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication, leading the appellant to file the current appeal before CESTAT Chennai.

    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

  • CESTAT Bangalore- No DGCA Clearance Needed for Toy-Grade UAVs

    CESTAT Bangalore- No DGCA Clearance Needed for Toy-Grade UAVs

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.06.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- No DGCA Clearance Needed for Toy-Grade UAVs

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, vide Final Order No. 20876/2025 dated 25.06.2025, allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Creative Education, setting aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on the import of quadcopter drones classified under Chapter Heading (CH) 9503 as toys.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Creative Education had imported RC quadcopter drones with cameras, and the consignment was classified under CH 9503 00 30 as plastic recreational articles. The Customs authorities, however, invoked Public Notice dated 07.10.2014 issued by DGCA and Notification No. 16/2015-20 dated 27.07.2016, to treat the goods as restricted items under CH 8806, requiring DGCA clearance. As a result, the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and a penalty of β‚Ή3,00,000 was levied under Section 112(a).

    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 Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai Quashes Penalties on Customs Broker in Export Overvaluation

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes Penalties on Customs Broker in Export Overvaluation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes Penalties on Customs Broker in Export Overvaluation

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, has quashed heavy penalties imposed on M/s. Cochin Air Cargo Clearing House and its partners. The Tribunal ruled that there was no substantive evidence of the Customs Broker’s connivance in the alleged overvaluation of goods intended for export or in the fraudulent MEIS claims.

    Background of the Case

    The case stemmed from an attempted export in June 2019 by M/s. Swiss Global, New Delhi, who sought to export substandard β€œair inlet automobile spare parts” valued at β‚Ή3.46 crore through the Trichy Air Cargo Terminal. The shipments, declared under CTH 84212300, were allegedly overvalued to fraudulently claim Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) benefits and IGST refunds.

    The customs authorities at Trichy initiated an investigation based on specific intelligence and seized the export cargo. A Show Cause Notice was issued, followed by a harsh Order-in-Original dated 30.06.2020 imposing the following penalties:

    • β‚Ή3 crore on Cochin Air Cargo Clearing House (Cochin unit)
    • β‚Ή3 crore on its Trichy branch
    • β‚Ή2 crore each on its Managing Partner and Manager

    The department invoked Sections 114(iii), 114AA, and 147(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, treating the Customs Broker and its partners as β€œdeemed exporters” liable for the attempted fraudulent export.

    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

  • CESTAT Bangalore Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty on CD-R Imports

    CESTAT Bangalore Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty on CD-R Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.06.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty on CD-R Imports

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has quashed the anti-dumping duty demand raised against Hi-Tech Computers, Hubli, on the import of CD-Rs from China. This decision aligns with the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs. G.M. Exports, reinforcing the legal position that anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed during the interregnum between expiry of provisional duty and the issuance of final duty notification.

    Case Background

    Hi-Tech Computers had imported Compact Disc – Recordable (CD-Rs) of Carbon brand from China on 24.04.2007. These imports were deemed liable for anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 105/2006-Cus dated 06.10.2006.

    Subsequently, the customs department confirmed a duty liability of β‚Ή6,64,208 along with applicable interest under Section 18(2)(a) and 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order by citing both Notification No. 105/2006 and the final Notification No. 78/2007 dated 29.06.2007, applying the anti-dumping duty retrospectively.

    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 Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad Set Aside Customs Duty Demand and Penalties on Re-Import of DG Sets

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Set Aside Customs Duty Demand and Penalties on Re-Import of DG Sets

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.06.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Set Aside Customs Duty Demand and Penalties on Re-Import of DG Sets

    The Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has delivered a significant ruling in favour of Sterling Generators Pvt. Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), by setting aside a customs duty demand of over β‚Ή1 crore along with associated penalties. The decision, dated 26.06.2025, not only quashes the demand but also reinforces important principles around re-importation, procedural compliance, and limitation in customs law.

    Background of the Case

    Sterling Generators Pvt. Ltd., based in Silvassa, operates as a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing diesel generator (DG) sets under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The company was granted bonded warehouse status under Section 58 and permission to manufacture in bond under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    The case arose after CERA auditors objected to the import/re-import of DG sets from SEZ and from another 100% EOU (M/s. Powerica Ltd.), claiming that the company had imported fully built DG sets and sold them without authorized manufacturing activity, in contravention of the EOU norms.

    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