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 Kolkata ruled that confiscation and penalty were unjustified when ownership was already relinquished and misdeclaration wasn’t proven

    CESTAT Kolkata ruled that confiscation and penalty were unjustified when ownership was already relinquished and misdeclaration wasn’t proven

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.05.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata ruled that confiscation and penalty were unjustified when ownership was already relinquished and misdeclaration wasn’t proven

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench delivered a significant ruling in favour of multiple importers, including Appellants, Kritika Impex, Kushagra Shipping Agency, Ganpati Roadways, and Bhawani Cargo Movers, who were accused of misdeclaration of goods and liable for penalties and duty demand.

    Case Background

    • Date of Bill of Entry: 11 September 2021 (No. 5405619) and earlier on 31 August 2021 (No. 5257900)
    • The importers had filed Bills of Entry based on shipping documents received from the foreign seller.
    • Upon learning on 18 September 2021 that the container had been wrongly loaded, the importers promptly notified Customs and declared relinquishment of goods under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    • A 100% examination revealed the presence of white pepper and white wood powder.
    • Despite relinquishing rights and disclosing the issue, the authorities issued Show Cause Notices alleging misdeclaration, invoking penalties and seeking confiscation.

    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 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 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

  • Bill of Lading & Charter Party contracts- New York Convention on Arbitration implemented in India

    Bill of Lading & Charter Party contracts- New York Convention on Arbitration implemented in India

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.04.2025

    Ref: ART-SM-21042025-001

    Bill of Lading & Charter Party contracts- New York Convention on Arbitration implemented in India

    Topic: Bill of Lading and Charter Party

    Case Law

    The Owners & Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Baltic Confidence & anr. Vs State of Trading Corportion of India Ltd. & anr.

    In Supreme Court of India, under Civil Appeal Decided On: 20.08.2001, wherein Appellants were  The Owners & Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Baltic Confidence & anr. and Respondents were State of Trading Corportion of India Ltd. & anr. wherein the subject matter of the case is of Contract and Arbitration. The said case referred Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 45; Arbitration Act, 1950 – Section 33; Arbitration (Amendment)Act, 1979

    This Article has been written by Mr. Shobhit Mallik, Arbitrator. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.lca23@gmail.com or office@aadrikaalaw.com & his Mobile No is +91-9712924188.

    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 Kolkata quashing a demand notice for recovery of a SAD refund

    CESTAT Kolkata quashing a demand notice for recovery of a SAD refund

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.04.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata quashing a demand notice for recovery of a SAD refund

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench, in Final Order No. 76020/2025 dated 24 April 2025, delivered a significant ruling in favour of KEC International Ltd., quashing a demand notice for recovery of a Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund.

    Background:

    • KEC International Ltd., a major manufacturer of power transmission equipment, had entered into an agreement with Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. for setting up fibre optic cabling infrastructure.
    • In order to fulfil contractual obligations, KEC imported OPGW fibre optic cables and accessories and cleared the same for home consumption on 22 January 2014.
    • The company paid all applicable duties including SAD and subsequently sold the goods to Power Grid, discharging VAT/CST, and filed for a SAD refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.
    • The refund claim was sanctioned on 26 September 2014 after due verification by Customs.

    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 Allahabad Quashes Penalty on R-22 Gas Smuggling

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Penalty on R-22 Gas Smuggling

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.04.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Penalty on R-22 Gas Smuggling

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, allowed the appeal of Appellant and set aside penalties imposed in a case related to the smuggling of R-22 gas cylinders.

    Case Background:

    • Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigations revealed that R-22 gas cylinders were smuggled from Dubai concealed under consignments of heavy melting scrap.
    • The impugned imports were attributed to Indian entitiesβ€”M/s Ramesh & Company and M/s Vipan & Companyβ€”using fake partitions in containers.
    • The appellant was accused of abetting the operation from Dubai and was penalized β‚Ή20 lakh under Section 112(a)(i) and β‚Ή15 lakh under Section 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 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 Mumbai Orders Interest on Refund of Seized Traveller’s Cheques

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Interest on Refund of Seized Traveller’s Cheques

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.04.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Interest on Refund of Seized Traveller’s Cheques

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench ruled in favor of M/s Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., directing the Customs Department to pay interest on the refund of β‚Ή47.86 lakhs, which was encashed from 106 traveller’s cheques seized back in 2006.

    Case Background:

    • On 19.10.2006, Customs officials at CSI Airport, Mumbai seized 106 traveller’s cheques from a passenger.
    • The cheques, amounting to USD $1,07,642 (equivalent to β‚Ή47,86,334), were deposited in the State Bank of India.
    • After prolonged litigation, redemption fine and penalties totaling β‚Ή10.01 lakhs were deducted.
    • The remaining β‚Ή41.85 lakhs was refunded, but no interest was paid on the retained amount.
    • The company sought interest on the refunded amount and alternatively, foreign exchange rate-adjusted compensation.

    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 Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.04.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench (Court No. 2) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against M/s Kiran Trading Company, thereby upholding the order of the Commissioner (Port), Kolkata, which had dropped proceedings initiated under a DRI show cause notice.

    Case Background:

    1. The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Original dated 23.10.2018, which dropped charges of mis-declaration of value and evasion of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on imports of Chinese-origin Melamine by M/s Kiran Trading Company. ​
    2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged over-invoicing to evade ADD, based on investigations and analysis of import patterns.

    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 Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.4.2025

    CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s JLC Electromet Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur. ​ This decision sheds light on the nuanced distinction between Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Additional Duty of Customs, as well as the applicability of interest on delayed IGST payments. ​ Let’s dive into the details of this case and its implications.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s JLC Electromet Pvt. ​ Ltd., imported goods under 13 Advance Authorizations, availing exemptions from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and IGST. ​ However, the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) found that the exemption from IGST was incorrectly claimed, as the appellant did not fulfill the “actual user” condition required under the scheme. ​ Upon being notified, the appellant paid the IGST along with interest.

    The dispute arose over the interest payment. ​ The appellant argued that IGST, being an Additional Duty of Customs, should not attract interest under the provisions of the Customs Act, citing precedents from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. ​ The Commissioner of Customs, however, appropriated the interest paid by the appellant, leading to this 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 New Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Reader for Download:

    ALO Document 18.04.2025Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com