ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #LegalView

  • CESTAT Allahabad Grants Exemption in Re-Export Dispute

    CESTAT Allahabad Grants Exemption in Re-Export Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.06.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Grants Exemption in Re-Export Dispute

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Allahabad has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Competence Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur, against the rejection of an extension request for re-export of goods under Notification No. 158/1995-Cus dated 14.11.1995.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Competence Exports had exported leather footwear and upper components to Russia. Due to quality/technical issues, the goods were re-imported for repairs and intended to be re-exported under the exemption available for such re-imports.

    The re-import took place on 27.12.2021 through Bill of Entry No. 6845771, and the goods were released by Customs on 10.02.2022. As per the notification, the goods had to be re-exported within six months, or with the Commissioner’s permission, within a further extended period of another six months.

    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 Bangalore Reiterates Burden of Proof on Revenue in Valuation Disputes

    CESTAT Bangalore Reiterates Burden of Proof on Revenue in Valuation Disputes

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.06.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Reiterates Burden of Proof on Revenue in Valuation Disputes

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench, allowed the appeals filed by M/s Kottaram Trading Co. and its partner, effectively setting aside customs duty demands, interest, and penalties arising out of allegations of undervaluation in the import of opal glassware.

    Background of the Case

    Kottaram Trading had imported 53 consignments of opal glassware from M/s ARC International Middle East LLC, UAE, between July 2003 and August 2006. The Directorate initiated proceedings in 2006, alleging undervaluation and invoking Section 114A and Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    The adjudicating authority re-determined the value from β‚Ή4.97 crore to β‚Ή7.32 crore and raised a differential duty demand of β‚Ή72.91 lakh, imposing equivalent penalties.

    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 Upholds Supreme Court’s Limitation Order

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Supreme Court’s Limitation Order

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Supreme Court’s Limitation Order

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has ruled in favor of Baosteel India Company Pvt. Ltd., allowing a refund of β‚Ή20.69 lakhs, which was earlier denied on grounds of limitation. This judgment reinforces the binding effect of Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic and sets a precedent in refund disputes affected by procedural delays during lockdowns.

    Case Background

    • Appellant: Baosteel India Company Pvt. Ltd.
    • Respondent: Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai
    • Dispute: Denial of refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) on grounds that the refund claim was filed beyond the statutory one-year limitation.
    • Amount Involved: β‚Ή20,69,268/-
    • Period of Imports: 2015 to 2018 (on provisional assessments)
    • Refund Application Filed: 18 January 2021
    • Final Assessment Date: 15 January 2020

    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 Sets Aside Gold Confiscation

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Gold Confiscation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.06.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Gold Confiscation

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) – Kolkata Bench allowed the appeal of Appellant, setting aside the confiscation of gold bars, currency, and a vehicle seized in 2017. The Tribunal held that the Department failed to establish the smuggled nature of the gold and other items under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Case Brief:

    • Seizure Date: 29 March 2017
    • Place of Seizure: Near Md. Ali Park, Kolkata
    • Items Seized:
      • 56 gold bars (approx. 7 kg)
      • USD 3400 in foreign currency
      • β‚Ή41,900 in Indian currency
      • Hyundai i10 car

    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 Rejects Allegations of Misdeclaration Involvement

    CESTAT Chennai Rejects Allegations of Misdeclaration Involvement

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Rejects Allegations of Misdeclaration Involvement

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench has set aside penalties totaling β‚Ή60 lakh imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged involvement in the import of counterfeit branded goods.

    The Tribunal held that the appellant, being merely a shipping liner and not an importer or declarant, had neither custody nor knowledge of the goods’ contents, and hence could not be held liable for alleged misdeclaration or intellectual property violations.

    Background of the Case

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Tuticorin, intercepted three shipping containers based on intelligence inputs and discovered:

    • Mobile accessories and branded cosmetics (Olay, Lakme, Loreal, etc.) undeclared in the Bill of Lading
    • Branded shoes (Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc.) suspected of violating IPR laws

    The goods were allegedly misdeclared in violation of:

    • Section 111(d) of the Customs Act
    • Legal Metrology Act, 2009
    • Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
    • Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007

    Subsequently, the Commissioner levied penalties of β‚Ή25 lakh, β‚Ή10 lakh, and β‚Ή25 lakh in three separate orders against Green Port Shipping Agencies under Section 112(b) for “dealing with goods liable to 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 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 Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in Bonded Gold Import

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in Bonded Gold Import

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.06.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in Bonded Gold Import

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has exonerated Indo Friends Agency, Sequel Logistics Pvt. Ltd., and others from customs penalties relating to the alleged diversion of bonded gold imported under the 80:20 Scheme.

    The case, involving complex movements of duty-free gold under RBI’s controlled import-export mechanism, saw penalties totaling over β‚Ή1.65 crore imposed on various logistics and customs service providers. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of abetment, knowledge, or procedural failure on their part.

    Case Summary

    • The gold was imported under RBI’s 80:20 Scheme and stored in Customs Bonded Warehouses (CBWs).
    • Upon investigation, Customs alleged diversion of 4 kg gold meant for export.
    • Indo Friends Agency was the customs broker, and Sequel Logistics was responsible for secure transportation and vault storage.
    • Despite having no control over the gold post-delivery, these intermediaries were penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act for alleged abetment.

    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- No Penalty for Theoretical Weight Variation

    CESTAT Ahmedabad- No Penalty for Theoretical Weight Variation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.06.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad- No Penalty for Theoretical Weight Variation

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Ahmedabad has set aside penalties and redemption fine imposed on Kalpataru Transmission Ltd, citing lack of mala fide intent in a case involving theoretical weight discrepancies during import.

    Case Background:

    Kalpataru Transmission Ltd imported Hot Rolled Steel Plates via Mundra port under Bill of Entry No. 6289437 dated 31.07.2014. While the declared weight in the bill was 51,716 kg, the customs examination revealed an actual weight of 53,820 kgβ€”an excess of 2,104 kg (approx. 4.1%).

    This discrepancy led customs to allege misdeclaration of quantity to evade duty and subsequently:

    • Confiscated the excess quantity under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962
    • Imposed a redemption fine of β‚Ή30,000 under Section 125, and
    • Levied a penalty of β‚Ή15,000 under Section 112(a)

    The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed, prompting Kalpataru to approach 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 Ahmedabad

    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 Upholds ASEAN FTA Claim in Cashew Import Dispute

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds ASEAN FTA Claim in Cashew Import Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds ASEAN FTA Claim in Cashew Import Dispute

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has ruled in favor of M/s AAA Trading Company, setting aside the denial of exemption benefits under the India–ASEAN FTA for import of roasted cashew kernels from Vietnam.

    Case Background:

    M/s AAA Trading imported roasted cashew kernels and claimed exemption under:

    • Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011, and
    • Notification No. 63/2016-Cus. dated 31.12.2016,

    …issued in line with India’s commitments under the ASEAN FTA.

    However, Customs authorities at Nhava Sheva disputed the classification of goods and alleged that the cashew kernels were not roasted but plain/raw. Relying on a DRI investigation and test reports from CEPCI Lab, Customs imposed:

    • Demand of differential duty: β‚Ή22,47,676/-
    • Confiscation of goods (live consignment)
    • Penalties under the Customs Act

    The order was upheld partially by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading AAA Trading to approach 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 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 Bangalore sets aside the Confiscation of Donated Medical Equipment

    CESTAT Bangalore sets aside the Confiscation of Donated Medical Equipment

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.06.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore sets aside the Confiscation of Donated Medical Equipment

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has set aside the confiscation and penalties imposed on G.V. Foundation, a charitable trust, for importing used medical equipment donated from the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Background: Humanitarian Import Challenged

    G.V. Foundation, a Bangalore-based charitable trust, imported a consignment of used but fully functional medical equipment donated by SOS International Inc., USA. The shipment was clearly labeled as β€œdonated relief cargo with no commercial value”.

    Despite:

    • The existence of a non-commercial invoice,
    • A Sea Waybill stating “No License Required”, and
    • Chartered Engineer certification confirming that the items had more than 80% residual life and were not hazardous or E-Waste,

    Customs authorities classified parts of the consignment as prohibited and hazardous, invoking provisions under Section 111(d) and Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, leading to:

    • A penalty of β‚Ή2 lakhs on the trust.
    • Confiscation of certain items,
    • Redemption fines, and

    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 Chennai Rejects Customs Duty Demand on Finished Leather

    CESTAT Chennai Rejects Customs Duty Demand on Finished Leather

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Rejects Customs Duty Demand on Finished Leather

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has allowed a group of appeals filed by leather exporters including Sri Karpaga Leathers, Meenal Leather Exports, Blossom Leathers, and others, setting aside the entire demand of export duty, penalty, and confiscation orders issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-IV.

    Case Background: Misdeclaration of Leather Type Alleged

    The case pertained to exports of finished leather by multiple Chennai-based exporters. Customs authorities alleged that these exporters had:

    • Misdeclared semi-finished leather as finished leather, and
    • Manipulated test samples to obtain a favorable certificate from CLRI (Central Leather Research Institute).

    The Revenue’s primary contention was that:

    • Exporters evaded 60% ad valorem export duty on unfinished leather.
    • Wrongful duty drawback and incentives were claimed.
    • Test reports were manipulated by switching samples.

    Based on this, the Department issued Show Cause Notices and passed Orders-in-Original invoking Sections 113(i), 114(ii), 114AA, 125, and 28(4) 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 Chennai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com