𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #LegalView

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside IGST Demand and Penalties
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 16.02.2026

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside IGST Demand and Penalties

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a significant judgment, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled in favor of Quality Systems and Equipments P. Ltd, setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 145/2024-25/Commr/NS-V/JNCH dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (NS-V), Nhava Sheva. The case revolved around the classification and applicable Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) rate on imported parts of poultry-keeping machinery.

Background of the Case

Quality Systems and Equipments P. Ltd, the appellant, imported “Poultry Keeping Machinery” and its parts between September 2017 and December 2021. The company classified these goods under CTSH 84362900 and CTSH 84369100, paying IGST at a rate of 12% as per Serial No. 199 of Schedule II of IGST Notification No. 1/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. However, during a post-clearance audit, the customs department raised concerns, alleging that the parts should have been classified under Serial No. 453 of Schedule III of the same notification, which attracts an IGST rate of 18%.

A show-cause notice was issued, and the Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the matter, confirming a differential IGST demand of Rs. 63,36,223/- along with applicable interest and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 1 crore for confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1964. Penalties under Sections 114A, 114AA, and 112(a) of the Customs Act were also imposed.

Appellant’s Arguments

During the appeal hearing, the appellant’s counsel, argued that the company was not given a fair opportunity to present its case before the Commissioner. The appellant had requested an adjournment for the hearing scheduled on 20.08.2024 due to the unavailability of its director, but no further notice was issued for another hearing. Consequently, the order was passed without considering the appellant’s submissions.

The appellant further contended that the GST Council had already recommended that parts of poultry-keeping machinery under tariff item 84369100 should be classified under Serial No. 199 of Schedule II, attracting a 12% IGST rate. This recommendation was notified and clarified through CBIC Circular No. 229/23/2024-GST dated 15.07.2024, which was issued before the Commissioner passed the order. Additionally, Circular No. 236/30/2024-GST dated 11.10.2024 clarified that past cases involving competing GST rates should be regularized on an “as is where is basis,” treating payments at the lower rate as fully compliant.

The appellant relied on Supreme Court judgments in Suchitra Components Ltd. Vs . Commissioner (2008) and Ranadey Micronutrients Vs. Collector of Central Excise (1996), which established that beneficial circulars should be applied retrospectively and are binding on departmental officers.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent argued that the Commissioner had conducted a proper legal analysis and that the circulars issued after the show-cause notice and adjudication could not have retrospective application. The respondent cited the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Private Ltd (2018), which held that circulars issued after adjudication cannot alter the legal position at the time of the order.

CESTAT’s Observations and Final Order 

After reviewing the appeal papers, written submissions, and case laws, the CESTAT bench comprising Hon’ble Judicial Member and Hon’ble Technical Member found merit in the appellant’s arguments. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid IGST at the rate of 12% as per the prevailing notification and that the clarificatory circulars issued by CBIC had retrospective application, as they were beneficial to the assessee.

The Tribunal also observed procedural lapses in the adjudication process, as the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to present its case. The Commissioner failed to consider the clarifications provided in the CBIC circulars, which were already in effect at the time of adjudication.

In its final order, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner’s order, stating that the appellant had duly discharged IGST at the correct rate of 12% for the imported parts of poultry-keeping machinery during the relevant period. The Tribunal also granted consequential relief to the appellant.

Key Takeaways
1. Retrospective Application of Beneficial Circulars: The judgment reinforces the principle that beneficial circulars issued by the government have retrospective application and are binding on departmental officers.
2. Importance of Procedural Fairness: The Tribunal emphasized the need for providing appellants with a fair opportunity to present their case during adjudication.
3. Classification and Tax Rates: The case highlights the complexities involved in the classification of goods and the determination of applicable tax rates under GST notifications.
4. Judicial Precedents: The reliance on Supreme Court judgments underscores the importance of established legal principles in resolving disputes.
Conclusion

The CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in favor of Quality Systems and Equipments P. Ltd is a landmark ruling that upholds the principles of fairness and the retrospective application of beneficial circulars. This judgment serves as a reminder to both taxpayers and tax authorities to adhere to procedural norms and consider all relevant developments during adjudication. It also highlights the importance of staying updated with changes in tax laws and notifications to ensure compliance and avoid disputes.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 16, 2026
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalty on Customs Broker
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 14.02.2026

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalty on Customs Broker

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Cargo Placement & Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughalkabad, New Delhi. This case revolved around the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the alleged violation of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR, 2004). The judgment, pronounced on February 12, 2026, provides valuable insights into the legal interpretation of customs regulations and the imposition of penalties.

Background of the Case

The appellant, M/s Cargo Placement & Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., is a customs broker licensed under CHALR, 2004. The case arose from allegations that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence and supervision over its employees, leading to the filing of fraudulent Bills of Entry for illegal imports. Specifically, the appellant’s G-Card holder, was accused of filing Bills of Entry for fictitious firms without verifying the authenticity of the documents or the importers. The General Manager of the appellant, was also alleged to have abetted the smuggling of goods by directing the G-Card holder to file the Bills of Entry without proper verification.

The Commissioner of Customs issued a show-cause notice to the appellant on February 3, 2011, alleging violations of Regulation 19 of CHALR, 2004, and proposed action under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004. Additionally, the notice mentioned that the appellant was liable for penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, for acts of omission and commission in dealing with goods liable to confiscation.

Key Issues in the Case

The primary issues in this case were:
1. Whether the appellant violated Regulation 19 of CHALR, 2004, by failing to supervise its employees and ensure proper conduct.
2. Whether the appellant was liable for penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, for acts of omission and commission related to illegal imports.
Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant contended that the allegations against it pertained to violations of Regulation 19 of CHALR, 2004, which could not be used as grounds for imposing penalties under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act.
- The appellant argued that the show-cause notice did not provide sufficient reasons or evidence to justify the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a)(i).
- The appellant relied on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi vs Buhariwal Logistics, which held that mere violation of CHALR regulations does not justify penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act unless there is tangible evidence of the employer’s knowledge of illegal acts committed by employees.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The department argued that the impugned order was valid and supported by sufficient evidence, which established the appellant’s acts of omission and commission, rendering it liable for penalties under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act.
Tribunal’s Observations and Judgment

The Tribunal carefully examined the show-cause notice and the impugned order. It noted that the primary allegations against the appellant were related to violations of Regulation 19 of CHALR, 2004, which require customs brokers to exercise supervision over their employees to ensure proper conduct. However, the Tribunal observed that the show-cause notice did not provide any specific reasons or evidence to justify the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act.

The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Buhariwal Logistics, which clarified that a violation of CHALR regulations does not automatically warrant penalties under the Customs Act unless there is evidence of the employer’s knowledge of illegal acts committed by employees. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner had failed to establish such knowledge or intent on the part of the appellant.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act was unsustainable. The impugned order dated March 31, 2013, was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Specific Allegations: The judgment highlights the necessity for show-cause notices to clearly specify the grounds for imposing penalties under the Customs Act. Mere mention of a section without substantiating evidence is insufficient.
2. Distinction Between CHALR Violations and Customs Act Penalties: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that violations of CHALR regulations do not automatically lead to penalties under the Customs Act unless there is evidence of the employer’s knowledge or involvement in illegal activities.
3. Due Diligence and Supervision: Customs brokers must exercise due diligence and ensure proper supervision of their employees to comply with CHALR regulations and avoid legal consequences.
4. Judicial Precedents Matter: The Tribunal’s reliance on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Buhariwal Logistics underscores the importance of judicial precedents in interpreting legal provisions and ensuring consistency in decisions.
Conclusion

The case of Cargo Placement & Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs serves as a crucial reminder for customs brokers to adhere strictly to CHALR regulations and exercise due diligence in their operations. It also underscores the importance of precise and evidence-backed allegations in legal proceedings. This judgment not only provides clarity on the interplay between CHALR regulations and the Customs Act but also reinforces the principle that penalties under the Customs Act require concrete evidence of knowledge or involvement in illegal activities.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 14, 2026
Karnataka High Court Ruled in Favor of Vidya Herbs in Customs Dispute Over Import Declaration
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 14.02.2026

Karnataka High Court Ruled in Favor of Vidya Herbs in Customs Dispute Over Import Declaration

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

On January 16, 2024, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru delivered a significant judgment in the case of CSTA No. 6 of 2023, involving the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore, and Vidya Herbs Private Limited. The case revolved around the import of goods by Vidya Herbs, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), and the subsequent dispute regarding the classification and declaration of the imported goods.

Background of the Case

Vidya Herbs Private Limited, a 100% EOU, filed a Bill of Entry on November 16, 2022, to clear goods declared as “Vietnam Robusta Coffee Beans” with a declared value of ₹96,09,828. The company sought to avail the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Customs dated July 22, 2003, which provides certain exemptions for EOUs. The Bill of Entry was cleared through the Risk Management System (RMS) without assessment.

However, during an open examination, Customs Officers observed that the imported goods were coffee husks instead of coffee beans, as declared. The goods were subjected to further examination, and Vidya Herbs sought clearance under the Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty Rules (IGCR), 2017, claiming the goods were classifiable under HS Code 09011145 and intended for use in manufacturing herbal extracts.

Vidya Herbs acknowledged the mismatch in the declaration and expressed willingness to pay the applicable duty to amend the Bill of Entry and clear the goods. Despite this, the Commissioner of Customs passed an Order-in-Original on February 1, 2023, determining the assessable value at ₹96,09,828, confiscating the goods under Sections 111(f), (l), (m), and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordering their release upon payment of a redemption fine of ₹10 lakhs.

Appeal to CESTAT and Subsequent High Court Proceedings 

Vidya Herbs challenged the Order-in-Original before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Regional Bench, Bengaluru. The CESTAT ruled in favor of Vidya Herbs, stating that the import policy requires a liberal approach to promote the activities of EOUs. The tribunal emphasized that the Customs Authority’s role is to verify the compliance of imported goods with import documents and approvals. It also noted that the goods were not seized, and the transaction was revenue-neutral since the goods were intended for re-export.

The Commissioner of Customs subsequently filed an appeal in the High Court of Karnataka, arguing that the CESTAT erred in allowing the appeal as the investigation was incomplete. The Revenue also pointed out that Vidya Herbs had admitted to the mismatch in the import documents and expressed willingness to pay the applicable duty.

High Court Judgment 

After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs. The court noted the following key points:
1. No Seizure of Goods: The court agreed with Vidya Herbs’ argument that confiscation could not be ordered unless the goods were seized. Since the goods were not seized, the confiscation order was deemed unsustainable.
2. Revenue Neutrality: The court acknowledged that Vidya Herbs is a 100% EOU, and the imported goods were intended for processing and re-export. Unless the Customs Authority could prove that the goods were sold in the domestic market or not re-exported, the issue remained revenue-neutral.
3. Liberal Approach for EOUs: The court upheld the CESTAT’s view that a liberal approach should be taken under the import policy to promote the activities of EOUs. It also noted that the CESTAT had reserved the liberty for Vidya Herbs to submit a fresh application under Rule 5(1)(a) of the IGCR Rules, 2017.
Final Order

The High Court concluded that the Revenue had no valid grievance against the CESTAT’s order. The appeal was dismissed, and the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were answered in favor of Vidya Herbs Private Limited. The court also ruled that no costs would be imposed.

Key Takeaways

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the principles of revenue neutrality and the need for a liberal approach in cases involving Export Oriented Units. It also underscores the significance of proper procedures, such as the requirement for seizure before confiscation, in customs-related disputes.

The case serves as a reminder for importers to ensure accurate declarations in their import documents to avoid legal complications. At the same time, it emphasizes the role of Customs Authorities in verifying compliance without unnecessarily penalizing EOUs that contribute to export activities.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in favor of Vidya Herbs Private Limited is a landmark ruling that reinforces the principles of fairness and transparency in customs proceedings. It sets a precedent for similar cases involving EOUs and highlights the importance of balancing regulatory compliance with the promotion of export-oriented businesses.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 14, 2026
CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Demand in Joss Powder Classification Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.02.2026

CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Demand in Joss Powder Classification Dispute

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. Good Luck Syndicate vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. This case revolved around the classification of “Joss Powder” under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and raised critical questions about the sustainability of the demand, the applicability of the extended period of limitation, and the imposition of penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Background of the Case

M/s. Good Luck Syndicate, the appellant, imported Joss Powder, classifying it under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 44050000, which attracted Basic Customs Duty (BCD) at 5% under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. and Countervailing Duty (CVD) at ‘Nil’. However, the Adjudicating Authority reclassified the goods under CTH 12119039, leading to a demand for differential duty. This decision was made without issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or providing the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Aggrieved by the demand, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai. Simultaneously, the Revenue also filed an appeal seeking the imposition of penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The First Appellate Authority, in its Order-in-Appeal, imposed penalties and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for verification of the appellant’s eligibility for the concessional rate under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus.

Key Issues Raised in the Appeals 

The appeals filed by M/s. Good Luck Syndicate raised the following critical issues:
1. Sustainability of the Demand: Whether the demand raised in the impugned order was valid.
2. Limitation Period: Whether the demand raised in the SCN was barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of Penalty: Whether the First Appellate Authority was correct in imposing a penalty under Section 114A and remanding the matter for verification of eligibility under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus.
Tribunal’s Observations and Findings

The Tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Member – Judicial and Hon’ble Member – Technical, carefully examined the facts and legal provisions surrounding the case. The key observations and findings were as follows:
1. Classification of Joss Powder: The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had relied on Note 1(a) to Chapter 44 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which excludes wood in powdered form used primarily in perfumery from the purview of Chapter 44. However, the appellant argued that Joss Powder, derived from the bark of the lit-sea tree, is essentially sawdust with adhesive or binder properties and does not possess any perfumery or medicinal characteristics. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant’s contention, stating that the product does not fall under CTH 1211, which covers plants and parts of plants used primarily in perfumery, pharmaceuticals, or for insecticidal purposes.
2. Extended Period of Limitation: The Tribunal observed that the SCN issued on 18.10.2013 was beyond the normal limitation period of one year under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The extended period of five years could only be invoked in cases involving collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, none of which were established in this case. The Tribunal relied on precedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases such as Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise and ECE Industries Ltd. vs. CCE New Delhi, which emphasized the strict application of limitation provisions.
3. Imposition of Penalty and Remand Directions: The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing penalties under Section 114A and remanding the matter for verification of eligibility under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. These directions were not part of the Review Order of the Commissioner dated 27.05.2015, nor were they supported by any allegations in the SCN. The Tribunal held that these directions were unwarranted and deserved to be set aside.
Final Order

After considering the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal Nos. 771 & 772/2015 dated 30.08.2015. The appeals filed by M/s. Good Luck Syndicate were allowed with consequential benefits as per law. The Tribunal’s decision was pronounced in an open court on 12.02.2026.

Key Takeaways

This judgment highlights several important aspects of customs law:
1. Proper Classification: The classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act must be based on their actual characteristics and intended use, rather than arbitrary assumptions.
2. Adherence to Legal Procedures: Authorities must strictly follow procedural requirements, including issuing SCNs and providing opportunities for personal hearings, to ensure fairness and transparency.
3. Limitation Period: The extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act can only be invoked in cases involving specific circumstances like collusion or suppression of facts.
4. Jurisdiction of Appellate Authorities: Appellate authorities must act within the scope of their powers and avoid exceeding their jurisdiction.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal principles and procedures in customs matters. It also underscores the role of appellate tribunals in ensuring justice and protecting the rights of importers and exporters.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Chennai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 13, 2026
CESTAT Ahmedabad Allows Refund of CVD & SAD in GST Era – Big Relief for Advance Authorization Importers
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.02.2026

CESTAT Ahmedabad Allows Refund of CVD & SAD in GST Era – Big Relief for Advance Authorization Importers

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Kiri Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad (Customs Appeal No. 10353 of 2020-SM). This case revolved around the refund claim of Rs. 24,12,483/- filed by Kiri Industries Limited under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, for Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on MEIS Scrips. The judgment, pronounced by Hon’ble Member Judicial, on February 12, 2026, has set a precedent for similar cases in the GST regime.

Background of the Case

Kiri Industries Limited filed a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, for CVD/SAD paid on excess import quantity of raw materials under Advance Authorization Licenses. The company argued that prior to July 1, 2017, CENVAT credit for such duties was available under the pre-GST regime. However, with the implementation of GST, no credit of such duties was available, prompting the company to seek a refund of Rs. 24,12,483/-.

The refund claim was initially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority (Joint Commissioner) on the grounds that the non-availability of input tax credit under the GST regime does not qualify as a valid reason for claiming a refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The authority also cited the principle of unjust enrichment as another reason for rejection. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading Kiri Industries Limited to file an appeal before the CESTAT.

Key Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments
1. Provisions of Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017: The appellant argued that Section 142(3) and 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, explicitly provide for the refund of CVD/SAD paid under the pre-GST regime in cash if the credit is no longer available under the GST regime. The appellant contended that the department failed to consider these provisions while rejecting the refund claim.
2. Unjust Enrichment: The appellant submitted that the concept of unjust enrichment was not applicable in this case. They provided a certificate from a Chartered Accountant confirming that the incidence of CVD paid on excess imported raw materials was not passed on to any other party. Additionally, the refund amount was disclosed as receivable in the balance sheet and not claimed as an expenditure in the Profit and Loss Account.
3. Supporting Judgments: The appellant cited several judgments, including JSW Steel Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise and Granules India Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad, which supported their claim for a refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Department’s Arguments
1. Non-Admissibility of Refund: The department argued that the refund claim was not admissible under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the duties were paid correctly in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and Customs Notifications.
2. Unjust Enrichment: The department raised concerns about unjust enrichment, suggesting that the appellant might have passed on the incidence of CVD/SAD to other parties.
3. Pending Supreme Court Appeal: The department highlighted that an appeal against a similar judgment in the Granules India Limited case was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
CESTAT’s Observations and Judgment 

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal made the following observations:
1. Applicability of Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017: The Tribunal emphasized that Section 142(3) and 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, provide for the refund of CVD/SAD paid under the pre-GST regime in cash if the credit is no longer available under the GST regime. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including JSW Steel Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise and Granules India Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad, which upheld similar refund claims.
2. Unjust Enrichment: The Tribunal found that the appellant had sufficiently demonstrated that the concept of unjust enrichment was not applicable in this case. The Chartered Accountant’s certificate and financial disclosures provided by the appellant were deemed adequate to establish that the incidence of CVD/SAD was not passed on to other parties.
3. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal noted that the department’s reliance on the Sarvo Packaging Limited case was misplaced, as subsequent judgments, including Sri Chakra Polyplast India Private Limited, had departed from this decision. The Tribunal also highlighted the principle that later judgments hold greater precedent value.
Final Decision

The Tribunal concluded that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to correctly interpret the provisions of Section 142(3) and 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. It held that the refund application filed by Kiri Industries Limited was in accordance with the law and should have been allowed. The appeal was thus allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential relief.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017: This case underscores the significance of Section 142 in addressing refund claims for duties paid under the pre-GST regime. It clarifies that refunds of CVD/SAD paid before July 1, 2017, but not utilized due to the transition to GST, are eligible for cash refunds.
2. Unjust Enrichment: The judgment highlights the importance of providing adequate evidence, such as financial disclosures and certificates from Chartered Accountants, to counter claims of unjust enrichment.
3. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal’s reliance on recent judgments demonstrates the evolving nature of legal interpretations and the importance of staying updated on case law.
Conclusion

The decision in Kiri Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad is a landmark ruling that provides clarity on refund claims under the CGST Act, 2017. It reinforces the principle that taxpayers are entitled to refunds of duties paid under the pre-GST regime if they are unable to avail credit under the GST framework. This judgment is expected to have a significant impact on similar cases and serves as a guiding precedent for taxpayers and legal practitioners navigating the complexities of tax refunds in the post-GST era.

Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 13, 2026
Bombay High Court Directs Provisional Release of Detained Walnuts in Customs Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 12.02.2026

Bombay High Court Directs Provisional Release of Detained Walnuts in Customs Dispute

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a significant legal victory, Santa Monica Farm Produce Pvt. Ltd. successfully challenged the arbitrary detention of their imported goods in the Bombay High Court. The case, Santa Monica Farm Produce Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. , revolved around the seizure and detention of approximately 8,000 kilograms of USA-origin in-shell walnuts imported by the petitioner. The court’s decision not only upheld the petitioner’s rights but also set a precedent for fair and transparent treatment of importers under Indian customs law.

Background of the Case

Santa Monica Farm Produce Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the import of agricultural produce, had purchased in-shell walnuts from Diamond Foods LLC, USA. The goods were shipped from Oakland, USA, to the Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Navi Mumbai, in December 2025. Upon arrival, the petitioner filed four Bills of Entry for home consumption, paid the assessed customs duty in full, and complied with all statutory requirements under the Customs Act, 1962.

Despite fulfilling all legal obligations, the goods were detained by customs authorities without any explanation, show-cause notice, or detention memo. The petitioner made several representations and sent an email on 20 December 2025, highlighting the perishable nature of the goods and the mounting demurrage charges. However, no response was received, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Petitioner’s Case

The petitioner argued that the detention of their goods was arbitrary and unjustified. They emphasized that the goods were perishable and required timely clearance to prevent deterioration and financial losses. The petitioner also highlighted the absence of any incriminating evidence or legitimate grounds for the detention of their goods.

The seizure memo issued by the customs authorities alleged undervaluation of the imported walnuts, citing investigations conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in Delhi against other importers. However, the petitioner contended that these allegations were based on general observations and were not specific to their case. They argued that no searches were conducted at their premises, and no evidence of undervaluation or irregularities was presented against them.

The Court’s Observations

The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice. The court noted several key points:
1. Lack of Evidence: The court observed that there was no incriminating material or evidence to justify the detention and seizure of the petitioner’s goods. The allegations of undervaluation were based on general observations related to other importers and were not applicable to the petitioner’s case.
2. Compliance with Statutory Requirements: The petitioner had complied with all statutory requirements, including the payment of customs duty, and the goods were eligible for release under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Arbitrary Action: The court criticized the customs authorities for their arbitrary and unjustified actions, which adversely affected the petitioner’s business and caused financial losses.
4. Provisional Release Conditions: The court reviewed the provisional release order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 23 January 2026, which imposed a condition of furnishing a bond and a bank guarantee of ₹60,00,000. The court found no justification for imposing such a coercive condition, given the lack of evidence against the petitioner.
The Court’s Decision

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Santa Monica Farm Produce Pvt. Ltd. The court issued the following orders:
1. The petitioner was entitled to the provisional release of the goods under the order dated 23 January 2026, but only on furnishing a bond, without the requirement of a bank guarantee.
2. The respondents were directed to release the goods to the petitioner within three days from the date of the order.
3. The respondents were ordered to issue a certificate of waiver of demurrage to the petitioner, acknowledging the unjustified detention of the goods.
Implications of the Judgment

This judgment is a landmark decision that underscores the importance of fair and transparent practices in customs procedures. It highlights the need for customs authorities to act based on tangible evidence and avoid arbitrary actions that can harm legitimate business operations. The court’s emphasis on the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 14 and Article 300-A of the Constitution reinforces the principle that government actions must be lawful and reasonable.

Conclusion

The victory of Santa Monica Farm Produce Pvt. Ltd. in this case is a testament to the power of judicial intervention in upholding the rights of businesses and ensuring accountability in administrative actions. The Bombay High Court’s decision serves as a reminder that the rule of law must prevail, and arbitrary actions by authorities will not be tolerated. This case is a significant step forward in protecting the interests of importers and promoting a fair business environment in India.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 12, 2026
Kerala High Court Upholds Preferential Duty Benefits Under India-Sri Lanka FTA

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 12.02.2026

Kerala High Court Upholds Preferential Duty Benefits Under India-Sri Lanka FTA

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

On January 27, 2026, the High Court of Kerala delivered a significant judgment in favor of Tolins Tyres Limited, a private limited company engaged in export and import operations. The case revolved around the denial of preferential duty benefits under the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) for the import of agricultural pneumatic tyres from Sri Lanka. The court’s decision not only upheld the rights of the petitioner but also set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Background of the Case

Tolins Tyres Limited imported 126 agricultural pneumatic tyres from Colombo, Sri Lanka, and filed a bill of entry for home consumption under Section 46 of the Customs Act upon the consignment’s arrival at the Port in Kochi on October 18, 2025. The company submitted a Certificate of Origin (Exhibit P5) issued by the Department of Commerce, Sri Lanka, which entitled them to preferential duty benefits under the ISFTA (Exhibit P1). However, the Customs authorities rejected the claim for preferential duty treatment without providing any specific reasons.

In response, Tolins Tyres Limited submitted a letter (Exhibit P6) requesting the reassessment of the bill of entry based on the Certificate of Origin. Despite this, the faceless Customs authority rejected the claim again, as evidenced by Exhibit P11. This led the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the rejection.

Interim Relief Granted 

During the initial hearing on December 16, 2025, the court issued an interim order directing the Customs authorities to release the imported goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount due. Following this order, the goods were released.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel , argued that the rejection of preferential duty benefits was based solely on the retrospective issuance of the Certificate of Origin. The counsel contended that this reason was invalid, citing Exhibit P10, a clarification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). The clarification explicitly stated that preferential duty benefits under the ISFTA should not be denied merely because the Certificate of Origin was issued retrospectively.

The petitioner also referred to a judgment by the Madras High Court (Exhibit P12), which dealt with a similar issue and ruled in favor of the petitioner in that case. These arguments were supported by various exhibits, including communications from the Department of Commerce, Sri Lanka (Exhibit P8) and an email (Exhibit P9) confirming the validity of the Certificate of Origin.

The Court’s Judgment

After hearing both parties, Justice found merit in the petitioner’s arguments. The court noted that the rejection of preferential duty benefits was primarily based on the retrospective issuance of the Certificate of Origin, a reason that was not valid as per the CBIC’s clarification in Exhibit P10. The court also observed that the Customs authority had failed to provide specific reasons for rejecting the claim.

In light of these findings, the court quashed the orders (Exhibits P7 and P11) and directed the Customs authority to reconsider the matter. The court instructed the competent authority to pass necessary orders within one month, following the procedure outlined in Section 28DA of the Customs Act and taking into account the relevant exhibits and observations made in the judgment.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment is a significant win for Tolins Tyres Limited and other businesses engaged in international trade under free trade agreements. It reinforces the principle that preferential duty benefits cannot be denied on arbitrary grounds, such as the retrospective issuance of Certificates of Origin. The court’s reliance on the CBIC’s clarification and the Madras High Court’s precedent highlights the importance of consistency and fairness in the application of trade agreements.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s decision in favor of Tolins Tyres Limited is a landmark ruling that underscores the importance of adhering to the provisions of free trade agreements. It serves as a reminder to authorities to ensure transparency and fairness in their assessments, thereby fostering trust and confidence among businesses engaged in international trade. This case is a testament to the power of judicial intervention in upholding the rights of businesses and ensuring compliance with established trade policies.

Source: Kerala High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

February 12, 2026
CESTAT Chennai Overturns Time-Barred Customs Duty Demand
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 11.02.2026

CESTAT Chennai Overturns Time-Barred Customs Duty Demand

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a significant judgment, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, delivered its final order on February 3, 2026, in the case of TTK Protective Devices Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs. This case revolved around the classification of imported goods and the applicability of customs duty, with the tribunal ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant, TTK Protective Devices Ltd., on the grounds of time-barred demand.

Background of the Case

TTK Protective Devices Ltd., formerly known as M/s. T.T.K. LIG Ltd., is a manufacturer of contraceptives that imports Natural Rubber Latex Concentrate from Malaysia under the trademark “EXCEL TEX-D.” The company classified the imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 4001 2910, which attracts a Basic Customs Duty (BCD) of 20% as per Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated March 1, 2002. However, during a post-clearance audit conducted by the Chennai II Central Excise Audit Team for the period April 2011 to March 2012, it was observed that the goods were allegedly misclassified. The audit team argued that the correct classification should be under CTH 4001 1020, which attracts a higher BCD rate of 70%.

The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai IV, issued an order reclassifying the goods under CTH 4001 1020, demanding a short-paid customs duty of ₹92,18,355 along with interest and imposing an equal penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. TTK Protective Devices Ltd. challenged this order before the CESTAT, leading to the present appeal.

Key Issues in the Case

The case primarily revolved around two major issues:
1. Correct Classification of Imported Goods: The dispute centered on whether the imported Natural Rubber Latex Concentrate should be classified under CTH 4001 2910 (as claimed by the appellant) or CTH 4001 1020 (as claimed by the department). The appellant argued that the goods were correctly classified under CTH 4001 2910, which specifically recognizes “Hevea” as a distinct variety of natural rubber latex, irrespective of its form. The department, on the other hand, contended that the goods should be classified under CTH 4001 1020, as the product was in liquid form and not in other forms such as sheets or strips.
2. Time-Barred Demand: The appellant argued that the demand raised by the department was time-barred. The dispute pertained to the period from April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2012, while the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on March 9, 2015—well beyond the normal limitation period of one year. The department countered this argument by claiming that the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act was applicable due to alleged misclassification and suppression of facts by the appellant.
Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant contended that the classification under CTH 4001 2910 was correct, as the tariff heading specifically recognizes “Hevea” as a distinct variety of natural rubber latex.
- The appellant argued that the term “form” in the tariff heading refers to the variety or type of natural rubber latex, not its physical state (liquid or solid).
- The appellant highlighted that similar goods had been cleared under the same classification in the past, and the department had not raised any objections during those clearances.
- The appellant emphasized that the SCN was time-barred, as it was issued beyond the normal limitation period, and there was no evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The department argued that the goods were correctly classifiable under CTH 4001 1020, as the imported latex was in liquid form and did not meet the criteria for classification under CTH 4001 2910.
- The department claimed that the extended period of limitation was applicable because the appellant, as an Accredited Client Programme (ACP) client, should have been aware of the correct classification and had failed to request provisional assessment or submit supporting documents.
Tribunal’s Observations and Judgment

After hearing both parties and reviewing the evidence, the tribunal made the following observations:
1. Time-Barred Demand: The tribunal noted that the SCN was issued beyond the normal limitation period of one year. It emphasized that the burden of proving misclassification and suppression of facts lies with the department. The tribunal found no evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellant. It cited several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s judgment in Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, which held that a finding of wilful misstatement requires evidence of a “positive act” indicating “wilful default.” Since no such evidence was presented, the tribunal ruled that the demand was time-barred.
2. Classification of Goods: The tribunal observed that the classification dispute involved genuine interpretational differences regarding the tariff headings. It noted that the appellant had previously cleared similar goods under the same classification, and the department had not raised any objections during those clearances. The tribunal also acknowledged that the appellant’s status as an ACP client indicated a consistent record of compliance, which should have been considered by the department.
3. Conclusion: Based on the above findings, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal on the issue of time bar. It did not examine the merits of the classification dispute, as the demand was already deemed time-barred.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Importance of Timely Issuance of SCN: The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to the limitation period for issuing a Show Cause Notice under the Customs Act. The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without clear evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
2. Burden of Proof on Revenue: The tribunal reiterated that the burden of proving misclassification lies with the department, and mere interpretational differences cannot be construed as wilful misstatement.
3. Role of ACP/AEO Status: The judgment highlights the importance of the ACP/AEO accreditation, which is granted to importers with a consistent record of compliance. Authorities must exercise caution and ensure that allegations against such importers are substantiated with credible evidence.
4. Impact of Past Practices: The tribunal acknowledged the relevance of past practices in determining the classification of goods. If similar goods have been consistently cleared under a particular classification without objection, it strengthens the case for the importer.
Conclusion

The case of TTK Protective Devices Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs serves as a crucial precedent in the realm of customs law, particularly in matters of classification disputes and time-barred demands. It reinforces the principles of fairness, transparency, and adherence to statutory timelines in adjudication processes.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Chennai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 11, 2026
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Duty and Penalty Orders in EPCG License Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 11.02.2026

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Duty and Penalty Orders in EPCG License Dispute

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment on January 19, 2026, concerning a series of appeals filed by Nehru Place Hotels Ltd and other appellants. The case revolved around the import of luxury cars under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme and the subsequent fulfillment of export obligations. This blog delves into the details of the case, the arguments presented, and the final verdict.

Background of the Case

The case involved six appeals filed by Nehru Place Hotels Ltd and its associated parties, including its Managing Director, Directors, and other stakeholders. The appeals challenged the Order-in-Original dated February 21, 2011, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi. The order imposed duty liabilities, penalties, and redemption fines under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the appellants.

Nehru Place Hotels Ltd, a five-star hotel in New Delhi, had applied for an EPCG license to import luxury cars for providing hospitality services to international guests and earning foreign exchange. The first EPCG license, granted on August 20, 1999, allowed the import of one Lincoln car, three BMW cars, and spare parts for one BMW car. Later, the license was amended on March 25, 2002, permitting the import of two Mercedes cars. A second EPCG license was obtained on March 1, 2002, for importing four Toyota Camry cars.

The appellants claimed to have fulfilled their export obligations under the EPCG scheme and submitted applications for Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs). The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) issued EODCs for both licenses, certifying that the export obligations had been met. However, in April 2008, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation into the licenses, leading to the seizure of the imported cars under Section 110 of the Customs Act. A show-cause notice was issued on May 12, 2010, alleging violations of the EPCG scheme, and the Commissioner (Adjudication) passed an order confirming the duty demands, penalties, and confiscation of the cars.

Key Arguments Presented
1. Appellants’ Arguments:
  - The appellants contended that the issues raised in the appeals were already covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal in Interglobe Enterprises Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and M/s. Bestech Hospitalities Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi.
  - They argued that the issuance of EODCs by the DGFT was proof of the fulfillment of export obligations under the EPCG scheme. The customs authorities did not have the jurisdiction to question the validity of the EODCs issued by the DGFT.
  - The appellants also highlighted that the imported cars were used for tourism-related activities, including transporting international guests, which contributed to foreign exchange earnings.
2. Department’s Arguments:
  - The department supported the impugned order, arguing that the appellants had violated the conditions of the EPCG scheme.
  - The department relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Surya Samudra Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd vs. CC (Export) Mumbai, which emphasized that the fulfillment of export obligations was not solely determined by the issuance of EODCs.
CESTAT’s Observations and Final Decision

The Tribunal carefully examined the arguments presented by both parties and referred to previous judgments, including Interglobe Enterprises Limited and Bestech Hospitalities Pvt Ltd. The key observations and conclusions were as follows:
1. Fulfillment of Export Obligations:
  - The Tribunal noted that the appellants had submitted logbooks and other evidence to demonstrate the use of imported vehicles for tourism-related activities, which contributed to foreign exchange earnings. The department did not provide any evidence to contradict these claims.
  - The Tribunal referred to a communication from the DGFT dated December 27, 2006, which clarified that foreign exchange earnings from hotel accommodation, food, beverages, and transportation of tourists could be considered towards the fulfillment of export obligations under the EPCG scheme.
2. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities:
  - The Tribunal emphasized that the customs authorities could not question the validity of EODCs issued by the DGFT. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Titan Medical Systems Pvt Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, which held that customs authorities cannot refuse exemptions based on allegations of misrepresentation if the licensing authority has not questioned the license.
3. Distinction from Surya Samudra Case:
  - The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Surya Samudra judgment, noting that the Supreme Court had set aside the observation that the fulfillment of export obligations was not determinative. In the current case, the issuance of EODCs by the DGFT was deemed determinative of the fulfillment of export obligations.
4. Final Verdict:
  - The Tribunal concluded that the customs authorities could not confirm the demand or impose penalties in the absence of any adjudication by the DGFT canceling the EODCs. Consequently, the impugned order dated February 21, 2011, was set aside, and all six appeals were allowed.
Key Takeaways

This judgment highlights several important aspects of the EPCG scheme and the jurisdictional boundaries between the DGFT and customs authorities:
1. EODCs as Determinative Evidence:
  - The issuance of an EODC by the DGFT is considered conclusive evidence of the fulfillment of export obligations under the EPCG scheme. Customs authorities cannot challenge the validity of an EODC unless it has been canceled by the DGFT.
2. Role of DGFT:
  - The DGFT is the competent authority to adjudicate matters related to the fulfillment of export obligations under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. Customs authorities cannot independently question the compliance of EPCG license conditions.
3. Use of Imported Goods:
  - The Tribunal clarified that foreign exchange earnings from services related to the tourism and hospitality industry, including hotel accommodation, food, beverages, and transportation, can be considered towards the fulfillment of export obligations under the EPCG scheme.
Conclusion

The CESTAT’s decision in this case underscores the importance of adhering to the jurisdictional boundaries between regulatory authorities and respecting the determinations made by the DGFT regarding export obligations. It also provides clarity on the scope of the EPCG scheme, particularly in the context of the tourism and hospitality industry. This judgment serves as a significant precedent for businesses operating under the EPCG scheme and highlights the need for clear communication and compliance with regulatory requirements.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 11, 2026
CESTAT Kolkata Upholds Exporter Rights: Landmark Ruling on Customs Valuation Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 10.02.2026

CESTAT Kolkata Upholds Exporter Rights: Landmark Ruling on Customs Valuation Dispute

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a significant judgment, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has delivered a landmark decision in the case of Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata vs. Appellant & M/s Ankraj Developer Pvt. Ltd.. The case revolved around the valuation of exported goods, specifically leather wallets, and the alleged overvaluation by the appellants. The Tribunal’s decision not only dismissed the Revenue’s appeals but also reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory valuation principles under the Customs Act, 1962.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when the appellants and M/s Ankraj Developer Pvt. Ltd., sought to export leather wallets under nine shipping bills during February 2023. The declared Free on Board (FOB) value of the goods was ₹6,61,02,740. However, the Customs Department alleged that the declared value was inflated, leading to potential undue drawback benefits. Following a market survey, the Department re-determined the value to ₹4,72,30,000, which was later revised to ₹5,22,87,600 by the adjudicating authority. The goods were confiscated, and penalties and redemption fines were imposed.

The appellants challenged the adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order, citing fundamental errors in the valuation process. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal.

Key Arguments

Revenue’s Arguments

The Revenue contended that the declared value was excessively high and based on overvaluation. They argued that a market survey was conducted to determine the correct value, which included the appellant’s representative. The adjudicating authority had considered the appellant’s submissions and revised the valuation, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice. The Revenue claimed that the appellants were attempting to claim undue drawback benefits and justified the penalties and redemption fines imposed.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents argued that the Department failed to follow the procedure outlined in Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 (CVR, 2007). They emphasized that the declared value was consistent with past export transactions to the same overseas importer. The respondents also pointed out flaws in the market survey, which compared non-comparable goods and ignored the higher procurement costs from traders. They argued that the adjudicating authority had arbitrarily added a notional profit margin of 10%, which is not supported by any legal provision.

Tribunal’s Observations

After hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal made the following key observations:
1. Violation of Statutory Valuation Principles: The Tribunal noted that the Customs Act, 1962, and CVR, 2007 mandate a sequential approach to valuation. The transaction value declared in the shipping bills should be accepted unless the Revenue provides concrete evidence to prove otherwise. In this case, the Department failed to justify the rejection of the declared value.
2. Errors in Market Survey: The Tribunal found that the market survey conducted by the Department was flawed. It compared dissimilar goods and failed to account for factors such as procurement costs, compliance testing, and warranty obligations that impact export pricing.
3. Past Export Data Ignored: The Tribunal highlighted that the adjudicating authority disregarded the appellant’s consistent export history, which demonstrated similar values for identical goods exported to the same buyers in the past.
4. Improper Application of Customs Valuation Rules: The Tribunal criticized the Department for bypassing the mandatory sequential application of valuation rules. The adjudicating authority failed to exhaust primary methods under Rules 3 and 4 before invoking Rule 6, which contravenes established legal principles.
5. No Evidence of Misdeclaration: The Tribunal found no evidence of misdeclaration, forged documents, or fabricated claims by the appellants. The goods were cleared through proper banking channels, and all material particulars matched the declared values.
Final Decision

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’ decision, dismissing the Revenue’s appeals. It concluded that the rejection of the declared FOB value was legally unsustainable and that the confiscation of goods, along with the imposition of fines and penalties, was unwarranted. The Tribunal directed the Customs Department to release the goods immediately, considering the significant delay of three years since their seizure.

Key Takeaways

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory valuation principles under the Customs Act, 1962, and CVR, 2007. It reiterates that the declared transaction value should be accepted unless the Revenue provides substantial evidence to prove otherwise. The case also highlights the need for proper application of the sequential valuation mechanism and the importance of considering past export data and business relationships.

The Tribunal’s decision serves as a reminder to authorities to ensure fairness and transparency in valuation disputes, protecting the rights of exporters while safeguarding revenue interests. It also emphasizes the need for thorough investigations and evidence-based conclusions in cases of alleged overvaluation or misdeclaration.

Conclusion

The dismissal of the Revenue’s appeals in this case is a victory for exporters and a reaffirmation of the principles of natural justice. It sets a precedent for future valuation disputes, ensuring that the Customs Department adheres to established legal procedures and safeguards. This judgment is a testament to the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of businesses engaged in international trade.

Source: CESTAT Kolkata

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 10, 2026