ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 12.11.2025
DGFT issues Clarification on Redemption of Advance Authorisations Impacted by Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules in context to the Supreme Court judgement
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.
The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, has issued Policy Circular No. β 07/2025-26 dated November 11, 2025, addressing concerns related to the redemption of Advance Authorisations (AAs) impacted by the erstwhile Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. This circular provides much-needed clarity for exporters and trade members who faced challenges due to the earlier provisions of Rule 96(10) and its implications on imports made between October 13, 2017, and January 9, 2019. β
Background
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, prior to its amendment, restricted the refund of IGST paid on exports in cases where exporters or their suppliers availed specified duty exemptions under Customs Notification No. β 79/2017-Customs. This created hurdles for exporters seeking redemption of their Advance Authorisations during the specified period. β
To address these issues, the DGFT had earlier issued Notification No. 33/2015-2020 on October 13, 2017, modifying Para 4.14 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020. β This notification extended exemptions from payment of duties, including IGST and Compensation Cess, for physical exports under the AA Scheme, subject to a pre-import condition. β However, the pre-import condition was later withdrawn through DGFT Notification No. β 53/2015-2020 on January 10, 2019, following the issuance of Customs Notification No. β 01/2019-Customs.
Supreme Court Judgment and Subsequent Actions
Union of India & ORS. βvs Cosmo Films Limited
The Supreme Court of India set aside the Gujarat High Court’s judgment, which had declared the ‘pre-import condition’ in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and customs notifications as arbitrary and unreasonable. The court upheld the validity of the ‘pre-import condition’ introduced by Notification No. 79/2017-Customs and Notification No. β 33/2015-2020, stating that it was within legislative discretion and not arbitrary. It emphasized that tax exemptions and refunds are statutory privileges, not constitutional rights, and that economic policies can involve phased implementation and experimentation. The court also ruled that the removal of the ‘pre-import condition’ through a later notification could not be applied retrospectively. β While allowing the Revenue’s appeals, the court directed the respondents (exporters) to claim refunds or input tax credit for duties paid during the interim period, subject to verification by the jurisdictional commissioner. β
The Honβble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated April 28, 2023, upheld the Revenueβs appeal and directed that affected parties be allowed to claim refunds or input tax credit (ITC) wherever applicable. β In response, the Customs Authorities issued Circular No. β 16/2023-Customs on June 7, 2023, and the DGFT followed suit with Trade Notices No. β 07/2023-24 and No. β 27/2023, issued on June 8, 2023, and September 25, 2023, respectively. β
Key Clarifications in Policy Circular No. β 07/2025-26
To further streamline the process and address exporters’ concerns, the DGFT has clarified the following points regarding the issuance of Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODC):
Payment of IGST in Cash: Exporters who paid IGST in cash at the time of clearing import consignments under the AA Scheme during the specified period will not face any hindrance in obtaining their EODC, provided all other requirements are met. β
Non-Availing of Duty Exemptions: Exporters who did not avail exemptions from IGST, Compensation Cess, or other levies (except Basic Customs Duty) are eligible for EODC issuance. β
Compliance with Pre-Import Conditions: Exporters who adhered to the prescribed pre-import and other procedural requirements under the AA Scheme will not face delays in EODC issuance. β
Conclusion
This clarification by the DGFT is a welcome move for exporters who were impacted by the earlier provisions of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. β By addressing the concerns and providing clear guidelines, the government has ensured smoother processes for the redemption of Advance Authorisations. Exporters are encouraged to review the circular and ensure compliance with the outlined conditions to facilitate the timely issuance of their EODCs.
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 10.11.2025
Supreme Court Quashes Customs Proceedings Against Subsequent Purchaser in Porsche Import
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 landmark judgment delivered on November 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Appellant, quashing the High Court’s decision and the proceedings initiated against him under the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around the import of a Porsche Carrera car and the subsequent demand for unpaid customs duty amounting to Rs. β 17,92,847.
Background of the Case
The case began in 2002 when a Porsche Carrera car was imported by one Seller. β The car was later sold to another individual in 2003, and subsequently purchased by Appellant in October 2004. In 2007, the Customs Department issued a Show-Cause Notice to the importer, the first possessor, and the appellant, alleging deliberate misdeclaration of the car’s model and year of manufacture, tampering with the chassis number, and evasion of customs duty. β
The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, confirmed the demand for customs duty and ordered the confiscation of the car, offering an option for redemption upon payment of a fine and the differential duty. β However, Appellant challenged this order before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which ruled in his favor, stating that he was a bona fide purchaser and not involved in the import or misdeclaration of the car. β
High Court’s Decision β
The Customs Department appealed the CESTAT ruling before the High Court of Kerala, which overturned the Tribunal’s decision. The High Court held that the payment of short-levied customs duty was a necessary consequence of redeeming the confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. β It ruled that Appellant, as a subsequent purchaser, was liable to pay the customs duty. β
Supreme Court’s Judgment
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Appellant approached the Supreme Court. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant. The Court observed the following key points:
Definition of Importer: The Court clarified that under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, an importer includes the owner or beneficial owner of goods only during the period between importation and clearance for home consumption. β Since Appellant was not the importer and had no involvement in the importation process, he could not be held liable for customs duty. β
Ownership Under Motor Vehicles Act: The Court noted that the car was not registered in Appellant’s name under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. β Legally, the ownership remained with the original importer. β Therefore, Choksey could not be considered the owner of the vehicle under Section 125 of the Customs Act. β
Liability of Possessor: The Court rejected the argument that Appellant, as the possessor of the car, could be held liable for customs duty. β It emphasized that liability under Section 125(1) arises only when the owner of the goods is unknown, which was not the case here. β
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment, the Show-Cause Notices, and all proceedings against Appellant, restoring the CESTAT’s order in his favor. The Court clarified that the Customs Department could proceed against the original importer, who remained the legal owner of the car. β
Key Takeaways
This judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between importers and subsequent purchasers under the Customs Act. β It also highlights the interplay between the Customs Act and the Motor Vehicles Act in determining ownership and liability. β The ruling serves as a significant precedent for cases involving bona fide purchasers and customs duty disputes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Appellant is a victory for justice and a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal definitions and procedures. It reinforces the principle that subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable for the actions of importers, provided they had no involvement in the importation process. β This case will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on similar disputes in the future.
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 08.11.2025
Supreme Court on the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C)
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.
Recent Landmarks, Contract Act interplay, and what they mean for commercial arbitration β
1) The statutory frame (A&C Act Γ Contract Act)
Consent & separability. Arbitration rests on contract formation under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (offer/acceptance, free consent, lawful object/consideration). The arbitration clause is separable from the underlying contract (A&C s.16); even when the main contract is challenged, the clause can survive.
Party autonomy, neutrality, minimal court intervention. A&C ss.5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 18, 34, 37; the 2015/2019/2021 amendments tightened neutrality (s.12(5)), nudged institutional appointments (s.11), narrowed βpublic policyβ and βpatent illegalityβ review (s.34), and introduced a fraud/corruption stay to enforcement (s.36(3) proviso, 2021).
Contract Act βfiltersβ. Clauses that are unconscionable or in restraint of legal proceedings (s.23/s.28) are policed through A&C provisions on equal treatment (s.18) and independence (s.12). The Court now reads constitutional equality into appointment schemes in standard-form public contracts.
2) Landmark Supreme Court judgments (late-2023 to 2025)
A. 7-Judge Bench β In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the A&C Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (13 Dec 2023)
Issue. Is an arbitration clause in an unstamped/insufficiently stamped agreement void/inoperative at the pre-referral stage? Held.Not void ab initio. Non-stamping affects admissibility, not existence/validity of the arbitration agreement. Courts at s.8/s.11 stage should ordinarily refer to arbitration; any stamp duty objection can be cured in the arbitral process. This overruled N.N. Global (2023). Arguments noted. Parties relying on Contract Act theory of consensual bargain + separability urged that stamping is a fiscal curable defect; the opposing side pressed βno contract without stampβ. Principles. (i) separability; (ii) kompetenz-kompetenz; (iii) pro-arbitration minimal judicial review at referral stage. Commercial impact. No more pre-arbitration derailments on technical stamp objections; faster references and lower front-end risk.
B. Constitution Bench β Cox & Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd (6 Dec 2023): Group of Companies doctrine (GoC)
Issue. Can non-signatory affiliates be bound to arbitration by conduct/participation in a single economic transaction? Held.Yes, in limited circumstances. The Court clarified and affirmed the GoC doctrine: look at common intention, participation in negotiation/performance, composite transaction, and mutuality of claims. Not a back-door to rope in every affiliate; itβs a fact-intensive inquiry. Arguments. Pro-GoC: modern commerce uses multi-entity structures; consent can be inferred from conduct. Anti-GoC: Contract Act requires privity/express assent. Principles. Consent remains the lodestar; Contract Act privity yields where objective indicia of consent exist. Impact. Better alignment of multi-party disputes with a single forum, fewer parallel litigations.
C. Five-Judge Bench β Unilateral appointments & curated panels (8 Nov 2024; 2024 INSC 857)
Issue. Are clauses letting one party (often a PSU) unilaterally appoint the sole arbitrator or restrict the other party to a curated panel valid? Held.No. The Court reaffirmed TRF/Perkins and disapproved Voestalpine/CORE to the extent they enabled one-sided control. Such clauses offend equality (A&C s.18) and independence (s.12(5)), and may be unconscionable under Contract Act s.23. Arguments.
Challengers: one-sided curation breeds bias; equality must exist at appointment.
Defenders: party autonomy permits agreed procedures; state needs vetted panels. Principles. Procedural equality and neutrality are non-derogable; waiver only post-dispute (s.12(5) proviso). Impact. Standard PSU/SoE clauses need re-drafting; expect more court-appointed neutrals or truly joint panel mechanisms.
Questions. Scope of s.34 intervention; can courts partially set aside (sever), correct clerical/computational errors, and adjust post-award interest without re-writing merits? What the Court did.
Re-maps s.34: public policy confined; patent illegality for domestic awards only; no merits re-appreciation.
Severance is intrinsic to s.34(2)(a)(iv) proviso β courts may excise only the bad part and preserve the rest.
Recognizes a narrow window to correct clerical/computational errors and, in limited circumstances, to recalibrate post-award interest while remaining within s.34 guardrailsβwithout converting s.34 into an appellate re-hearing. Arguments.
For a wider power: βthe greater power to set aside includes the lesser to varyβ; comparative seats allow calibrated fixes.
Against:Project Director, NHAI v M. Hakeem (2021) disallowed modification; only legislature can expand remedies. Takeaway. Courts cannot re-adjudicate, but may sever invalid portions and make limited corrections that keep within s.34βs text (not a merits review). Useful in construction/infra awards with multiple segregable claims.
3) How these rulings interlock with the Contract Act in commercial disputes
Consent & privity (ss.10, 13β19, 23).Cox & Kings aligns modern privity analysis with objective consent across a composite commercial matrix; affiliates who negotiated/performed or benefitted canβt later plead non-signatory status when the facts show assent by conduct.
Unconscionability/public policy (s.23). The 2024 Constitution Bench grounds neutral appointments in equality and public policy; boilerplate βsole arbitrator by employer/PSUβ provisions risk invalidation as procedurally unconscionable.
Illegality/fraud (ss.23, 17). The 2021 amendment to s.36(3) A&C permits automatic stay of enforcement if the arbitration agreement/contract/award appears induced by fraud/corruptionβa direct cross-over from Contract Act invalidating factors into the enforcement stage.
Stamping is not contract-killing. The 7-Judge ruling treats stamping as a curable admissibility issue, preventing Contract Act βexistenceβ objections from being misused to stall references.
Appointment clauses. Avoid one-party curation or unilateral appointment. Provide joint nomination or neutral institution with open panels. Cite s.12(5)/s.18; anything else risks being struck down.
Stamping hygiene. Donβt panic at referral: proceed to arbitration and cure stamping as directed; donβt burn time at s.11 on fiscal technicalities.
Multi-party deals. If affiliates are integral to negotiation/performance, record their role; that evidence supports GoC joinder later.
Section 34 strategy. Frame challenges narrowly: target jurisdictional overreach or non-arbitrable slices, seek severance of the bad portion, and limit prayer to clerical/interest corrections where appropriateβdo not invite re-hearing on facts.
5) One-page case synopses (for ready citation)
(i) 7-JB Stamping β In Re: Interplayβ¦ (2023)
Summary. Unstamped/under-stamped agreements do not kill arbitration clauses; referral courts should not conduct mini-trials on stamp duty. Stamp issues can be addressed after reference. Ruling. Referral allowed; earlier contrary view overruled. Key law. A&C ss.8, 11, 16; Stamp Act; separability/kompetenz.
(ii) Group of Companies β Cox & Kings v SAP India (2023)
Summary. Clarifies when non-signatories can be bound: intention, participation, composite transaction, interdependence of agreements. Ruling.GoC affirmed; fact-intensive consent test. Key law. A&C s.7; Contract Act consent doctrines.
2021:s.36(3) provisoβautomatic stay where prima facie fraud/corruption taints the agreement/contract/award. These provisions colour s.8/s.11 referrals and s.34/s.36 enforcement arguments.
Bottom line for commercial arbitration
The Court has de-clogged referrals (stamping), modernised consent analysis (GoC), insisted on neutral appointments (no unilateral/panel strangleholds), and stabilised s.34 practice (sever the bad; correct the obvious; do not retry the case). Draft your clauses to share appointment power, anticipate multi-entity realities, and litigate s.34 with surgical precision.
References (primary):
In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements⦠(7-JB, 13 Dec 2023).
Cox & Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd (CB, 6 Dec 2023).
Constitution Bench on unilateral appointments & curated panels (8 Nov 2024; 2024 INSC 857).
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 05.11.2025
Supreme Court Clarifies Timing and Applicability of Customs Duty Notifications
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.
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. M/S G S Chatha Rice Mills & Anr. β (Civil Appeal No. 3249 of 2020), which has significant implications for importers, exporters, and the government. The case revolved around the timing and applicability of a notification issued under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which increased customs duty on goods imported from Pakistan to 200%. β This judgment provides clarity on how notifications under the Customs Tariff Act are to be applied and whether they can have retrospective effect. β
Background of the Case
On February 14, 2019, a terrorist attack occurred in Pulwama, leading to heightened tensions between India and Pakistan. β In response, the Indian government issued a notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act on February 16, 2019, increasing the customs duty on all goods originating from or exported by Pakistan to 200%. β The notification was published in the e-Gazette at 20:46:58 hours on the same day. β
However, earlier on February 16, 2019, several importers had already presented their bills of entry for home consumption under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. β These bills of entry were self-assessed based on the prevailing rate of duty before the notification was issued. β The customs authorities later sought to reassess these bills of entry and apply the enhanced duty rate retroactively, leading to a legal challenge by the importers. β
Key Legal Questions β
The case raised several important legal questions:
When does a notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act take effect? β Is it from the time it is published in the e-Gazette or from the start of the day it is issued? β
Can such a notification apply retrospectively to transactions completed earlier on the same day? β
Does the principle of disregarding fractions of a day apply to notifications under Section 8A? β
Supreme Courtβs Observations
The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, addressed these questions and provided clarity on the timing and applicability of notifications under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act.
1. Nature of the Notification β
The Court clarified that a notification issued under Section 8A is a form of delegated legislation. β While it has the force of law, it is not equivalent to a “Central Act” or “Regulation” as defined under the General Clauses Act, 1897. β Therefore, Section 5(3) of the General Clauses Act, which allows Central Acts to take effect from the expiration of the previous day, does not apply to such notifications. β
2. Timing of Notification β
The Court emphasized that the notification under Section 8A takes effect only from the time it is published in the e-Gazette. β In this case, the notification became effective at 20:46:58 hours on February 16, 2019. It cannot apply to bills of entry presented before this time. β The Court noted that the exact time of publication in the e-Gazette is critical in determining the enforceability of such notifications, especially in the era of electronic governance. β
3. Retrospectivity
The Court held that Section 8A does not empower the Central Government to issue notifications with retrospective effect. β The enhanced rate of duty can only apply prospectively, starting from the time of publication. β The Court emphasized that delegated legislation does not have retrospective effect unless explicitly authorized by the parent statute. β
4. Reassessment
The Court ruled that the customs authorities could not reassess bills of entry that were presented and self-assessed before the notification was published. β The rate of duty applicable at the time of presentation of the bill of entry is final and cannot be altered retroactively. β The Court also clarified that the power of reassessment under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act cannot be used to apply a new rate of duty to transactions that were completed before the notification was issued. β
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
Publication Time Matters: The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the exact time of publication in the e-Gazette for determining the enforceability of notifications. β In this case, the notification took effect only from 20:46:58 hours on February 16, 2019, and could not apply to transactions completed earlier that day. β
No Retrospective Effect: Delegated legislation, such as notifications under Section 8A, cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly authorized by the parent statute. β This ensures that importers are not unfairly penalized for transactions completed before the notification was issued. β
Legal Certainty for Importers: The judgment reinforces the principle that importers are entitled to rely on the rate of duty in force at the time of presenting their bills of entry. β This provides much-needed transparency and predictability in tax administration. β
Impact of Electronic Governance: The Court acknowledged the evolving role of technology in regulatory governance. β With the shift to electronic systems for filing bills of entry and publishing notifications, the timing of publication has become a critical factor in determining the applicability of laws. β
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment has far-reaching implications for importers, exporters, and the government. It ensures that importers are not subjected to sudden and retrospective changes in duty rates, protecting their rights and fostering trust in the legal system. It also emphasizes the importance of precise timing in the publication of notifications, particularly in the digital age. β
For the government, the judgment serves as a reminder to ensure timely publication of notifications and to avoid retrospective application of laws unless explicitly authorized by the parent statute. It also highlights the need for clear and consistent regulatory frameworks that align with modern technological advancements. β
Conclusion
The Supreme Courtβs decision in this case is a significant step forward in ensuring fairness and clarity in the application of fiscal laws, particularly in the context of international trade. By upholding the principle of prospective application of delegated legislation and emphasizing the importance of publication timing, the Court has reinforced the need for transparency and predictability in tax administration. β
This judgment will undoubtedly serve as a precedent for future cases involving the timing and applicability of notifications under fiscal laws, ensuring that the rights of importers and exporters are protected while maintaining the integrity of the legal system.
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 01.11.2025
βSC Reinforces Attorney-Client Privilege: Summoning Lawyers for Client Information Held Illegalβ
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.
Supreme Court Upholds Advocate-Client Privilege
2025 INSC 1275 | In Re: Summoning Advocates by Investigating Agencies
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court of India, taking suo motu cognizance, addressed a fundamental question: Can investigating agencies summon an advocate to disclose information about a client or case he represents?
The case originated when an advocate was summoned under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to provide details about a bail matter he handled. The Gujarat High Court dismissed his plea, leading to the present intervention by the Supreme Court.
Core Legal Issue
Whether the investigating agency can compel an advocate to divulge client communications or case details β and if such summons violates Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which codifies the doctrine of attorney-client privilege.
Key Legal Provisions Discussed
Section 132 BSA (2023): Protects confidential communication between advocates and clients.
Section 179 BNSS (2023): Empowers officers to summon witnesses.
Section 528 BNSS (2023): Provides for judicial oversight of such summons.
Articles 19(1)(g), 20(3), 21 & 22(1) β Constitutional protection of professional rights, liberty, and the right to legal counsel.
Rule 11, Bar Council of India Rules (1975): Mandates advocates to maintain confidentiality and act with integrity.
Arguments & Perspectives
Bar Associations & Advocates
Summoning advocates infringes the right to practice and attorney-client confidentiality.
Disclosure without client consent violates Section 132 BSA and may lead to professional misconduct.
Judicial oversight is essential before any summons is issued.
State & Union of India
No advocate can be summoned merely for rendering a legal opinion or appearing for a client.
If an advocate participates in an illegal act, the privilege does not apply.
The statutory framework under BNSS & BSA already provides sufficient safeguards.
Courtβs Observations: Role of an Advocate
The Court eloquently reaffirmed the noble role of lawyers as:
Guardians of liberty and officers of justice, not mere agents of clients.
Bound by trust, confidence, and confidentiality.
Essential to ensuring the rule of law and protection of rights.
βThe position of trust the advocate occupies vis-Γ -vis his client cannot be put to test by any attempt to breach professional confidence.β β Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Exceptions to Privilege under Section 132 BSA
Clientβs express consent.
Communication made in furtherance of an illegal purpose.
Observation of a crime or fraud during engagement.
Non-professional communications (outside the course of legal engagement).
In-house counsel exclusion β salaried corporate lawyers are not covered.
Comparative Jurisprudence
The Court cited global precedents to reinforce the principle:
Greenough v. Gaskell (UK, 1833) β Privilege essential for justice.
US v. Upjohn & Co. (1979) β Ensures full disclosure between client and lawyer.
Minister of National Revenue v. Duncan Thompson (Canada, 2016) β Privilege as a principle of fundamental justice.
Akzo Nobel v. European Commission (2010) β Exclusion of in-house counsel privilege.
Judgment Highlights
Investigating agencies cannot summon advocates merely for client or case details.
Any summons must explicitly mention the exception invoked under Section 132 BSA.
Prior written approval of a superior officer (not below the rank of Superintendent of Police) is mandatory.
Advocates have a right to challenge such summons under Section 528 BNSS.
Privilege extends to legal consultations, even outside pending cases.
Documents & digital devices may be produced before a court, but confidentiality must be protected.
Final Ruling
βThe power to summon under Sections 175 & 179 BNSS is not the power to destroy the sanctity of attorney-client communications so long as the constitutional courts stand.β
The Court held the summons issued in the present case illegal, as it sought βtrue details of facts and circumstances of the caseβ from the advocate β a direct violation of Section 132 BSA and the constitutional right to effective legal representation.
Impact & Legal Significance
Reinforces Rule of Law and independence of the Bar.
Prevents coercive misuse of investigative powers.
Clarifies that privilege is client-centric, yet advocates can assert it.
Promotes judicial accountability through Section 528 BNSS oversight.
Draws a balance between investigation and professional confidentiality.
Conclusion
The Supreme Courtβs 2025 decision in In Re: Summoning Advocates marks a watershed moment for the legal profession β reaffirming that the advocate-client relationship is sacred, and confidentiality is the cornerstone of justice. While exceptions exist for illegality and fraud, the Courtβs message is clear:
No lawyer should be made to betray the trust that forms the soul of legal representation.
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 01.11.2025
Understanding the Legal Landscape of Importing Second-Hand Digital Multifunction Devices in India
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.
The importation of second-hand Digital Multifunction Devices (MFDs) has been a contentious issue in India, with various legal and regulatory challenges faced by importers. β Recent judgments from the High Court of Madras and the Supreme Court of India have provided clarity on the matter, particularly regarding the provisional release of these goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. β
The Background
MFDs, which are highly specialized equipment used for printing, copying, and scanning, have been subject to scrutiny by the Customs Department. β The primary concerns revolve around their categorization under import/export regulations, which classify items as prohibited, restricted, or freely importable. β While importers argue that MFDs are freely importable, the Customs Department and other government bodies, such as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), have raised objections, claiming that these goods are restricted or prohibited.
Key Legal Developments
Provisional Release Under Section 110A of the Customs Act β
Section 110A allows for the provisional release of seized goods during investigation or adjudication. β This provision aims to prevent financial losses and operational delays for importers while ensuring that the Customs Department can continue its investigation. β Importers are required to execute a bond or provide a bank guarantee to cover potential duties, fines, or penalties. β
Madras High Court Judgments β
In a landmark judgment dated 10th July 2025 (WP No. 29418 of 2024), the Madras High Court ruled in favor of importers, stating that MFDs qualify as Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) under Clause 8 of the Compulsory Registration Order (CRO), 2021. The court emphasized that MFDs weighing more than 80 kg and imported in less than 100 units per model per year are exempt from the application of CRO, 2021. β The court also clarified that the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, do not prohibit the import of MFDs, provided the required documents are submitted to the Customs Authorities.
Tanish Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs– WP No. 29418 of 2024
The case involves importers seeking provisional release of second-hand digital multifunction devices (MFDs) detained by the Customs Department, which claimed the goods were restricted or prohibited. β The petitioners argued that MFDs are freely importable as Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) under the Compulsory Registration Order (CRO), 2021, and Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), 2023. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the Customs Department to provisionally release the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, subject to conditions, while leaving the final adjudication open. β
Key Points:
Issue: Whether second-hand MFDs are freely importable or restricted items requiring BIS certification and DGFT authorization. β
Petitioners’ Claim: MFDs qualify as Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) and are exempt from restrictions under CRO, 2021, and FTP, 2023. β
Respondents’ Claim: MFDs are restricted or prohibited items requiring compliance with BIS, DGFT, and environmental regulations. β
Court’s Ruling: Directed provisional release of MFDs under Section 110A of the Customs Act, subject to conditions, and left final adjudication open. β
Precedents: Previous rulings by the Madras High Court, Telangana High Court, and Supreme Court upheld the free importability of MFDs. β
Provisional Release: Allows importers to access goods while investigations continue, preventing financial losses due to detention. β
βHD Printers vs Commissioner of Customs- Writ Petition No.39010 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.43694 of 2025
The case involves M/s. HD Printers, represented by its proprietor Mr. Jagan Kumar, filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Customs Department to allow the provisional release of 120 units of second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines. β These machines were imported and submitted for clearance with the required documentation, including a report from a DGFT-approved Chartered Engineer. β The Customs Department had initially refused to release the goods, citing restrictions under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (HOW Rules). β However, the court referred to a previous judgment (W.P.No.29418 of 2024) and ruled that the case was covered under the earlier order, which allowed provisional release of similar goods. β The court directed the Customs Department to release the goods provisionally, subject to conditions and final adjudication. β
Key Points:
Petitioner: M/s. HD Printers. β
Respondents: Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. β
Issue: Provisional release of 120 second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines. β
Legal Basis: Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. β
Customs Department’s Argument: Machines classified as “other wastes” under HOW Rules, 2016, requiring prior permission for import. β
Court’s Decision: Directed provisional release of goods within four weeks, subject to conditions and final adjudication.
Reference Case: W.P.No.29418 of 2024, which allowed provisional release of similar goods.
Provisional Release Conditions: Execution of a simple bond for 100% of the enhanced value and payment of applicable GST.
Final Adjudication: Customs Department retains the right to reverse the provisional release order during final adjudication. β
Maruti Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs- WP No. 35987 of 2025
The case involves M/s. Maruti Enterprises, represented by its proprietor Gautam Sharma, filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. β The petitioner seeks the provisional release of two consignments of second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines (MFDs) imported by them. β The petitioner claims that the goods were examined by a DGFT-approved Chartered Engineer, who provided a report to the Customs Officer. β Despite this, the Customs Department proceeded to forfeit the goods. β The petitioner argues that the issue is covered by a previous order of the Madras High Court, which allowed the provisional release of similar goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
The court referred to the earlier judgment, which clarified that MFDs are not prohibited items under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, and are freely importable. β The court directed the Customs Department to grant provisional release of the goods within four weeks, subject to conditions as per the Customs Act, 1962. β The provisional release is subject to final adjudication, and the Customs Department retains the authority to reverse the provisional release order during the final adjudication process. β
Key Points:
Petitioner: M/s. Maruti Enterprises. β
Respondents: Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. β
Issue: Provisional release of two consignments of second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines. β
Legal Basis: Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. β
Court’s Reference: Previous Madras High Court order in WP No. β 29418 of 2024, which allowed provisional release of similar goods.
Court’s Decision: Directed the Customs Department to grant provisional release within four weeks, subject to conditions under the Customs Act, 1962. β
Provisional Release Conditions: Subject to final adjudication, and the Customs Department may reverse the provisional release order during the final adjudication process. β
No Costs: The court disposed of the writ petition without imposing any costs. β
Supreme Court Endorsement β
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Telangana High Court, which had granted provisional release of MFDs under similar circumstances. β This decision reinforced the stance that MFDs are freely importable and eligible for provisional release. β
Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Commissioner of Customs- Civil Appeal Nos. 5259/2007, 3226/2007 and 3977/2007
The case revolves around whether second-hand photocopying machines imported by M/s Atul Commodities Pvt. β Ltd. in January 2005 were “freely importable” as capital goods under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2004-09 or required a license for import. β The Kerala High Court had ruled that such imports required a license, relying on policy circulars issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). β However, the Supreme Court held that the DGFT circulars were clarificatory and not amendatory, and only the Central Government had the authority to amend the FTP under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. β The Court ruled that second-hand photocopying machines were “capital goods” and were freely importable under the FTP 2004-09. β The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of M/s Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and dismissed the appeals filed by the Department. β
Key Points:
Issue: Whether second-hand photocopying machines imported in January 2005 were freely importable as “capital goods” or required a license under the FTP 2004-09. β
High Court Decision: Kerala High Court ruled that the imports required a license, relying on DGFT circulars.
Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court held that DGFT circulars were clarificatory, not amendatory, and only the Central Government could amend the FTP under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act, 1992. β
Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that second-hand photocopying machines were “capital goods” and were freely importable under FTP 2004-09. β The judgment of the Kerala High Court was set aside, and the Tribunal’s decision favoring M/s Atul Commodities Pvt. β Ltd. was restored.
Final Verdict: M/s Atul Commodities Pvt. β Ltd. won the case, and the Department’s appeals were dismissed. β
Recent Judgments
Subsequent cases, such as WP No. β 39010 of 2025 and WP No. 35987 of 2025, have followed the precedent set by the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court. These judgments have consistently directed the Customs Department to grant provisional release of MFDs, subject to conditions such as the execution of a bond and payment of applicable GST.
Notification on Special Economic Zones (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2024 β
The document is a notification issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, dated June 20, 2024. β It announces the Special Economic Zones (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2024, which amend the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. β The amendments focus on rule 18, sub-rule (4), clause (d), specifically modifying the provisions related to reconditioning, repair, and re-engineering activities within Special Economic Zones (SEZs). β
Key changes include:
Reconditioning, repair, and re-engineering are permitted under the condition that exports must have a one-to-one correlation with imports, and all processed products must be exported. β
Non-hazardous metal and metal-alloy wastes generated from these activities may be sold in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under certain conditions:
The waste must be in metallic, non-dispersible form without contaminants listed under Basel No. β B1010 in Part D of Schedule III of the Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules, 2016. β
Sale in the DTA is subject to payment of applicable customs duty and treated as import. β
Such sales are allowed only to actual users or traders authorized by the State Pollution Control Board on a one-time basis. β
Verification of specified documents by Customs Authority is required. β
The rules come into effect upon publication in the Official Gazette. β The notification also references previous amendments to the principal rules, last updated on June 6, 2024. β
Key Takeaways for Importers
Provisional Release: Importers can seek provisional release of detained goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, provided they fulfill the conditions set by the Customs Department. β
Exemption Criteria: MFDs that meet the criteria for HSE under Clause 8 of CRO, 2021, are exempt from the application of the order. β Importers must ensure their goods weigh more than 80 kg and are imported in less than 100 units per model per year. β
Compliance with HOW Rules: Importers must submit the required documents as per Schedule VIII of the HOW Rules to the Customs Authorities at the time of import. β
Final Adjudication: Provisional release does not guarantee the final outcome. β The Customs Department retains the authority to reverse the provisional release order during final adjudication. β
Conclusion
The legal clarity provided by the courts is a significant relief for importers of second-hand MFDs. β However, it is crucial for importers to ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements and maintain proper documentation to avoid complications during the import process. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, staying updated on relevant judgments and notifications is essential for smooth business operations.
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 20.09.2025
Supreme Court Clarifies Time Limits for Seizure and Release of Goods Under Customs 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.
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Respondent (Civil Appeal No. β 3489 of 2024), addressing the legal implications of non-issuance of show-cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962. This ruling has far-reaching consequences for businesses dealing with seized goods and the procedural obligations of customs authorities. β
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized a luxury car (Maserati) owned by Respondent, a trader in imported and second-hand luxury cars. β The car was detained under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and later provisionally released under Section 110A. β However, the DRI failed to issue a show-cause notice within the stipulated time frame prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act. β
The respondent approached the Delhi High Court, which ruled in his favor, declaring that the failure to issue a show-cause notice within the prescribed period entitled him to the unconditional release of the seized car. β The Union of India challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 19.09.2025
Supreme Court of India Sets Aside Gauhati High Court Judgment on Time-Barred Tax Assessmentsβ β
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 landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a judgment by the Gauhati High Court concerning the reassessment of time-barred tax cases under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. β The ruling, delivered on September 11, 2025, in the case of M/S Shiv Steels vs. The State of Assam & Ors. β, has significant implications for the interpretation of fiscal statutes and the powers of tax authorities. β
Background of the Case
The dispute revolved around the reassessment of tax liabilities for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. β Initially, the assessments were declared time-barred under Section 19 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which prescribes strict time limits for completing assessments and reassessments. β However, the revenue department later obtained the sanction of the Commissioner and invoked Section 21 of the Act to conduct fresh assessments within an extended limitation period. β
The appellant, M/S Shiv Steels, challenged the fresh assessments, arguing that they were invalid and beyond the permissible time limits. βThe Gauhati High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, holding that the reassessment was valid under Section 21, as the Commissioner had granted prior sanction.
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 16.09.2025
Supreme Court- Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil Not an Agricultural Productβ β β Β
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 landmark judgment delivered on May 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal of Noble Resources and Trading India Private Limited (formerly Andagro Services Pvt. β Ltd.) against the Union of India and others. β The case revolved around the classification of crude degummed soyabean oil and its eligibility for duty exemption under the Export-Import (EXIM) Policy of 2002-2007. β
Background of the Case
Noble Resources, a two-star export house, had imported crude degummed soyabean oil under a duty-free credit entitlement (DFCE) certificate issued as per the EXIM Policy. The company claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification No. β 53/2003-Cus. dated April 1, 2003. β However, the customs department denied the exemption, arguing that crude degummed soyabean oil was an agricultural product and thus excluded from the benefits of the notification. β
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, in an order dated January 9, 2007, upheld the department’s view and demanded duties amounting to Rs. β 1,00,38,321. This decision was later affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in 2019. β Noble Resources then approached the Supreme Court.
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 15.09.2025
Supreme Court of India Upholds CESTAT Decision in Customs Valuation β β
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.
On October 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. M/s Ganpati Overseas (2023INSC881), addressing critical issues related to customs valuation under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment, authored by Justice, upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision, which had set aside the customs department’s order enhancing the value of imported goods and imposing penalties on the importer. β
Background of the Case
The case revolved around allegations of under-invoicing by M/s Ganpati Overseas, which had imported tuners and saw filters from Hong Kong during 1997-1999. β The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the importer had declared lower prices for the goods to evade customs duty. β The department relied on unattested photocopies of export declarations filed by the foreign supplier before the Hong Kong customs authority, which showed higher prices than those declared in the import invoices.
The adjudicating authority rejected the import invoice prices and enhanced the value of the goods under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. β Penalties were imposed on the importer and its proprietor. β However, the CESTAT overturned this decision, leading to the department’s appeal before the Supreme Court.
