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: #SamsungIndiaElectronicsPvt.Ltd

  • “Decoding Classification: The Case of Samsung’s Wired Remote Controllers Under Customs Tariff Act”

    “Decoding Classification: The Case of Samsung’s Wired Remote Controllers Under Customs Tariff Act”

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.10.2025

    “Decoding Classification: The Case of Samsung’s Wired Remote Controllers Under Customs Tariff Act”

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate 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.

    Case Summary: The case involves Samsung India Electronics Private Limited seeking an advance ruling on the classification of “Wired Remote Controllers” for air-conditioning systems under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ The applicant proposed classification under Heading 8537 10 90 as “Electrical Control Console,” while the Department argued for classification under Heading 8415 90 00 as “Parts” of air-conditioning machines.

    Source: Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, New Delhi Bench, CBIC, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi clarified the Correct classification of IC-Codecs

    CESTAT Delhi clarified the Correct classification of IC-Codecs

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi clarified the Correct classification of IC-Codecs

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate 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 ruling by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. emerged victorious in a long-standing dispute over the classification of imported goods. The case revolved around whether the imported “IC-Codecs” should be classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8542 39 00, as claimed by Samsung, or under CTI 8517 62 90, as determined by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. ​ The decision, pronounced on July 22, 2024, has far-reaching implications for importers and the electronics industry.

    Background of the Case

    Samsung India Electronics Pvt. ​ Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of mobile phones and tablets, imports “IC-Codecs” for use in its production processes. ​ These goods are electronic integrated circuits that function as compressors/decompressors when mounted on a Printed Circuit Board (PCB). Samsung classified these goods under CTI 8542 39 00, which covers “Other Electronic Integrated Circuits,” and availed a concessional duty rate under a notification dated March 1, 2005. ​

    However, during an audit, the Customs Department argued that the goods should be classified under CTI 8517 62 90 as “Other Communication Apparatus,” attracting higher customs duty and Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). ​ This led to a demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. ​ 1.89 crore, along with interest.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Upholds 12% IGST on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile Phone Manufacturing

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds 12% IGST on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile Phone Manufacturing

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds 12% IGST on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile Phone Manufacturing

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Principal Bench, delivered a comprehensive judgment on 23rd June 2025 in Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, resolving a long-standing dispute over the correct IGST rate applicable on lithium-ion batteries imported for use in the manufacture of mobile phones.

    Key Issue

    The central issue before the Tribunal was whether lithium-ion batteries imported by Samsung India and other mobile manufacturers for use in the manufacture of mobile phones are to be taxed at:

    • 12% IGST under Serial No. 203 of Schedule II (as claimed by Samsung India),
      or
    • 28% or 18% IGST under Serial No. 139 of Schedule IV and 376AA of Schedule III, respectively (as claimed by the Department).

    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 Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Grants Exemption to Samsung India on Display Assemblies

    CESTAT Delhi Grants Exemption to Samsung India on Display Assemblies

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.05.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Grants Exemption to Samsung India on Display Assemblies

    The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, ruled in favor of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., setting aside customs duty demands raised by the department. The case revolved around whether the imported Mechanical Electrical Assembly (MEA) Front used in high-end smartphones like Galaxy Note 10 qualifies for basic customs duty exemption under Serial No. 6(a)(iv) of Notification No. 57/2017-Cus, which covers β€œDisplay Assembly” for mobile phones.

    The Tribunal held that Samsung’s imported Assembly Front meets the criteria of β€œDisplay Assembly” and therefore qualifies for the exemption, rejecting the department’s interpretation that the inclusion of components like battery or receiver disqualified it from the benefit.

    Background of the Case

    • Appellant: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
    • Issue: Rejection of exemption claimed on MEA Front assemblies used in smartphone manufacturing
    • Exemption Notification: Serial No. 6(a)(iv) of Notification No. 57/2017-Cus (as amended)
    • Goods in Question: MEA Front containing display, sub-PCBA, non-detachable battery, and waterproofing elements
    • Department’s View: Product does not qualify as β€œDisplay Assembly” since it contains additional sub-parts
    • Total Appeals: 26 (including Customs Appeal No. 51162/2022 and 25 related matters)

    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 Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com