𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #TaxLitigations

Bombay High Court Resolves Glucometer Classification Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 03.01.2026

Bombay High Court Resolves Glucometer Classification Dispute

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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Anr.  (Writ Petition No. 5992 of 2021). This case revolved around the classification of glucometers under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the subsequent implications for customs duty and Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). The judgment not only clarified the classification of glucometers but also underscored the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to precedents.

Background of the Case

Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, is engaged in the import and sale of blood glucose monitoring systems under the brand name “Contour.” These glucometers are primarily used by individuals to monitor their blood sugar levels at home. The petitioner classified the imported glucometers under tariff item 9027 of Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, which covers instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis. Based on this classification, the petitioner paid customs duty at a NIL rate and IGST at 12%.

However, during an audit of the Bill of Entry, the Customs Department alleged that the glucometers were misclassified under tariff item 9027 and should instead be classified under tariff item 9018, which covers instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences. The department issued a consultative letter and a show-cause notice, demanding a differential duty of ₹30,79,295.

The Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner contended that the glucometers were correctly classified under tariff item 9027, as they are instruments for chemical analysis. They cited a precedent set by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the case of Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (2016), where glucometers were classified under tariff item 9027. The petitioner argued that the CESTAT ruling was binding on the adjudicating authority and should have been followed.

Additionally, the petitioner highlighted that the glucometers are primarily used by individuals at home rather than by medical professionals, which aligns with the explanatory notes for tariff item 9027. They emphasized that the essential function of glucometers is to perform chemical analysis of blood glucose levels, making them more appropriately classified under item 9027.

The Respondents’ Argument

The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the CESTAT and that the writ petition should not be entertained. They cited judgments that emphasized the need for exceptional circumstances, such as a breach of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice, to justify the filing of a writ petition.

The Court’s Observations and Judgment 

The Bombay High Court rejected the respondents’ argument regarding the alternate remedy, stating that the CESTAT had already ruled on the classification of glucometers in the Bayer Pharmaceuticals case. The court emphasized that judicial discipline and the doctrine of stare decisis required the adjudicating authority to follow the binding precedent set by CESTAT. The court noted that relegating the petitioner to file an appeal would be a mere formality, as the issue had already been conclusively decided.

The court also addressed the respondents’ reliance on Notification No. 50/2017-Customs, which specified a standard rate of duty for “Blood Glucose Monitoring System (Glucometer) and test strips” under Chapter 90 or any other chapter. The court clarified that this notification would only apply if the goods were classified under item 9018, not 9027. Since the CESTAT had already determined that glucometers fall under item 9027, the notification was irrelevant to the case.

In conclusion, the court quashed the impugned order dated 31st December 2020 and the consequential notices of demand. The judgment was initially recorded as “dismissed,” but was later corrected to “disposed” in a subsequent order dated 18th November 2022.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Judicial Discipline: The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to binding precedents set by higher judicial authorities. The court emphasized that the adjudicating authority should have followed the CESTAT’s ruling in the Bayer Pharmaceuticals case.
2. Classification of Goods: The case highlights the complexities involved in classifying goods under the Customs Tariff Act and the importance of correctly interpreting tariff items and explanatory notes.
3. Exceptional Circumstances for Writ Petitions: The court clarified that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as a breach of fundamental rights or violation of judicial discipline.
4. Impact on Importers: The judgment provides clarity for importers of glucometers, affirming their classification under tariff item 9027 and the associated customs duty and IGST rates.
Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in this case is a landmark ruling that reinforces the principles of judicial discipline and the importance of adhering to established precedents. It also provides much-needed clarity on the classification of glucometers under the Customs Tariff Act, ensuring consistency in the application of tax laws. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law and ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
January 3, 2026
CESTAT Delhi Overturned Extended Limitation and Valuation Rejection Under Customs Act
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 02.01.2026

CESTAT Delhi Overturned Extended Limitation and Valuation Rejection 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.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 M/s. Chahat Impex vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi (Customs Appeal No. 224 of 2012). This case revolved around the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the rejection of transaction value under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.

Background of the Case

M/s. Chahat Impex imported 17 consignments of ball valves/cartridges during 2007-08 and submitted Bills of Entry for customs clearance. The goods were cleared by the customs officer after examining the goods and accepting the declared value. However, three years later, in April 2011, the customs department conducted a search at the appellant’s premises and resumed goods and documents. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued on March 31, 2011, alleging undervaluation of goods and proposing to reject the declared assessable value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The notice also invoked the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, as the notice was issued beyond the normal six-month period.

The Commissioner of Customs passed an order on March 20, 2012, confirming the demand for differential duty and rejecting the transaction value declared by the appellant. The appellant challenged this order before the CESTAT.

Key Issues in the Case

The appeal raised two critical issues:
1. Rejection of Transaction Value: The Commissioner re-determined the assessable value under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, instead of accepting the transaction value declared by the appellant.
2. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation: The show-cause notice was issued after the normal six-month period, relying on the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, which allows an extended period in cases of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement.
Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant contended that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no evidence of willful suppression, fraud, or misstatement.
- They argued that the department had access to all relevant information at the time of assessment and failed to raise any objections then.
- The appellant also challenged the rejection of the transaction value, asserting that the Commissioner had not provided sufficient grounds for re-determining the value under Rule 8.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The department argued that the appellant had indulged in fraudulent import practices by undervaluing goods and submitting false invoices.
- They supported the Commissioner’s decision to reject the transaction value and invoke the extended period of limitation, citing the appellant’s alleged intent to evade customs duty.
Tribunal’s Observations and Judgment

The Tribunal focused primarily on the issue of whether the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked. It noted the following:
1. The Bills of Entry were submitted in 2007-08 and cleared without any objections regarding valuation. The investigation began three years later, and the show-cause notice was issued more than six months after the investigation started.
2. The Commissioner failed to provide concrete evidence of fraudulent intent or willful suppression by the appellant. The mere undervaluation of goods does not automatically imply an intent to evade duty.
3. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India and others, which emphasized that the extended period of limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act can only be invoked if there is clear evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful suppression with the intent to evade duty.
Based on these observations, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in this case. Consequently, the impugned order dated March 20, 2012, was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Extended Period of Limitation: The judgment reinforces the principle that the extended period of limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act can only be invoked when there is clear evidence of fraudulent intent, collusion, or willful suppression of facts. Mere undervaluation or non-disclosure does not suffice to establish intent to evade duty.
2. Rejection of Transaction Value: The decision highlights the importance of providing detailed reasoning when rejecting the transaction value declared by an importer. Authorities must substantiate their claims with concrete evidence and cannot rely on routine assertions.
3. Burden of Proof: The onus is on the department to prove that the importer acted with fraudulent intent or suppressed material facts. Without such evidence, the extended period of limitation cannot be applied.
Conclusion

The CESTAT’s judgment in this case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the legal requirements for invoking the extended period of limitation. It underscores the need for customs authorities to provide substantial evidence when alleging fraud or suppression of facts. For importers, this case highlights the significance of maintaining accurate documentation and ensuring compliance with customs regulations to avoid disputes and penalties.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
January 2, 2026
CESTAT Chennai Allows Duty Exemption for Reimported Tyres and Tubes
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 02.01.2026

CESTAT Chennai Allows Duty Exemption for Reimported Tyres and Tubes

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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. Tractor and Farm Equipments Ltd. (Appeal Nos. 41317 & 41318 of 2016). This case revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 94/96-Cus dated 16.12.1996, which provides customs duty exemption for goods reimported into India, provided they are the same as those exported. The judgment, pronounced on December 17, 2025, has set a precedent for cases involving reimported goods and their eligibility for customs duty exemption.

Background of the Case

The appellant, M/s. Tractor and Farm Equipments Ltd., is a manufacturer of tractors. The company exported tractors in Semi Knock Down (SKD) condition to TAFE International, Turkey, under drawback shipping bills. These tractors were fitted with tyres and tubes procured from M/s. Balakrishna Tyres, India. However, some of the tyres and tubes were rejected by the buyer due to quality concerns and subsequently reimported into India. The appellant filed bills of entry for clearing the reimported goods, declaring them as rejected tyres and tubes and sought customs duty exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus.

The notification allows duty exemption for goods reimported into India within one year of export, provided the goods are the same as those exported. However, the customs authorities denied the exemption, stating that the reimported tyres and tubes were not the same as the goods exported, as the original export involved tractors, not individual tyres and tubes.

Key Issues in the Case 

The primary issue in this case was whether the reimported tyres and tubes could be considered the same as the goods exported, thereby qualifying for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The customs authorities argued that the notification required the reimport of the entire exported goods (tractors in SKD condition) for the exemption to apply. They also pointed out that the identification of the reimported tyres and tubes with the exported goods could not be conclusively established.

The appellant contended that the tyres and tubes were indeed part of the exported tractors and were returned due to quality concerns. They argued that requiring the reimport of the entire tractor shipment was impractical and contrary to commercial logic. The appellant also presented supporting evidence, including invoices, packing lists, and correspondence, to establish the identity of the reimported goods.

Tribunal’s Observations and Judgment

The Tribunal carefully examined the facts, evidence, and arguments presented by both parties. It noted that the notification requires the goods to be the same as those exported, but does not explicitly mandate the reimport of the entire consignment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering commercial realities and business practices when interpreting such notifications.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the reimported tyres and tubes as part of the tractors exported earlier. The invoices, packing lists, and correspondence clearly indicated that the tyres and tubes were manufactured in India by M/s. Balakrishna Tyres and were part of the original export consignment. The Tribunal also highlighted that the marks on the tyres and tubes corroborated the appellant’s claims.

Furthermore, the Tribunal criticized the strict interpretation of the notification by the lower authorities, stating that it was unreasonable to expect the reimport of the entire tractor shipment when only specific parts were rejected by the buyer. The Tribunal emphasized that the satisfaction of the notification’s conditions should not be imprudent or oblivious to commercial realities.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had satisfactorily established the identity of the reimported goods as those exported. It held that the appellant was entitled to the customs duty exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus and set aside the impugned orders of the lower authorities.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Liberal Interpretation of Notifications: The Tribunal underscored the importance of adopting a liberal and reasonable interpretation of notifications, taking into account commercial realities and business practices.
2. Sufficient Evidence for Identification: The judgment highlighted the significance of providing comprehensive evidence, such as invoices, packing lists, and correspondence, to establish the identity of reimported goods.
3. Practical Application of Rules: The Tribunal recognized that requiring the reimport of entire consignments for duty exemption is impractical and contrary to the intent of the notification.
4. Precedent for Future Cases: This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases involving reimported goods and customs duty exemptions, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in interpreting notifications.
Conclusion

The CESTAT Chennai’s decision in the Tractor and Farm Equipments Ltd. case is a landmark ruling that reinforces the importance of a pragmatic and evidence-based approach in customs law. By allowing the appellant’s appeal and granting the duty exemption, the Tribunal has provided clarity on the interpretation of Notification No. 94/96-Cus and has upheld the principles of fairness and commercial practicality. This judgment will undoubtedly serve as a guiding light for future cases involving reimported goods and customs duty exemptions.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
January 2, 2026
Madras High Court Issues Writ of Mandamus Directing Release of Confiscated Imported Goods Under Quality Control Order
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 01.01.2026

Madras High Court Issues Writ of Mandamus Directing Release of Confiscated Imported Goods Under Quality Control Order

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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court recently ruled in favor of Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd., directing the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – II (Import), to release the company’s imported goods. The case, W.P.No.50475 of 2025, revolved around the import of feminine hygiene products and the applicability of the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Textiles.

Background of the Case

Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director, is a Chennai-based importer of feminine hygiene products, including sanitary napkins and panty liners. These products are manufactured in China using advanced technology unavailable in India and are sold under the brand name “Plush.” The Chinese manufacturer had applied for certification under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Foreign Manufacturer Certification Scheme, as the products fall under BIS Schedule-A and must comply with BIS standard IS 5045:2019.

The company imported goods under two Bills of Entry dated 29.03.2025 and 31.03.2025. However, an alert notice issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs on 27.02.2025 raised concerns about the applicability of the Quality Control Order (QCO) on imports. The Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) clarified that the relaxation granted in the QCOs for obtaining BIS licenses under Conformity Assessment Rules did not apply to imports. This led to the confiscation of the petitioner’s goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, along with penalties and fines.

Legal Proceedings

Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. filed multiple writ petitions to seek the release of their goods. Initially, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to pass orders within four weeks. However, the Customs Department ordered the confiscation of the goods, imposed a fine of ₹10,00,000/- under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, and levied a penalty of ₹5,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act. The department argued that the goods did not conform to BIS standards and were imported in violation of the QCO.

The petitioner challenged this order in W.P.No.37033 of 2025, but the High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the QCO applied to manufacturers and not importers. The court advised the petitioner to seek an alternate remedy before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CESTAT, along with a miscellaneous application seeking interim relief for the release of goods and a stay on the order-in-original. On 22.12.2025, the CESTAT allowed the application, granting a stay on the operation of the impugned order and permitting the provisional release of the goods.

The High Court’s Final Decision

Despite the CESTAT’s order, the Commissioner of Customs did not release the goods, prompting Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. to file another writ petition (W.P.No.50475 of 2025) seeking a writ of mandamus for the release of the goods. The case was heard by the Honourable Justice on 26.12.2025.

After carefully considering the submissions from both sides, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Justice noted that the petitioner, as an importer and a registered MSME under the UDYAM Registration Certification, was entitled to the benefit of the extended timeline granted under the second amendment to the QCO dated 30.07.2025. This amendment allowed importers to sell, display, or offer to sell declared stocks up to 31.12.2025, provided the goods were imported before 01.04.2025.

The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial orders under Article 261 of the Constitution of India, which mandates “full faith and credit” to judicial decisions. Since the CESTAT had already stayed the order-in-original and allowed the petitioner’s application for provisional release, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to comply with the CESTAT’s order.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Recognition of MSMEs: The court acknowledged the petitioner’s status as a registered MSME and upheld its entitlement to the extended timeline under the QCO amendment.
2. Judicial Authority: The judgment reinforced the principle that judicial orders from quasi-judicial authorities like the CESTAT must be respected and implemented.
3. Provisional Release of Goods: The court ordered the release of the goods, subject to the petitioner depositing ₹15,00,000/- with the respondent within 24 hours. This deposit was to be made without prejudice to the rights of the parties, ensuring that the ongoing appeal before the CESTAT would not be influenced by the High Court’s observations.
Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s decision in favor of Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. is a significant victory for importers and MSMEs navigating complex regulatory frameworks. It highlights the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring fair treatment and compliance with statutory provisions. As the case proceeds to the CESTAT for final adjudication, this judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding the rights of businesses while balancing regulatory compliance.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Madras 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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
January 1, 2026
Bombay High Court Dismisses Customs Appeal: Upholds CESTAT Order for Unconditional Release of Seized Goods
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 01.01.2026

Bombay High Court Dismisses Customs Appeal: Upholds CESTAT Order for Unconditional Release of Seized Goods

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 legal development, the Bombay High Court recently delivered a judgment in favor of VKC Nuts Private Limited, dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V. The case revolved around the import of 791 bags of in-shell walnuts by VKC Nuts under the Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) scheme, which allows duty-free import of items listed in the DFIA scrip. The court upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (CESTAT) decision to release the seized goods unconditionally, marking a victory for VKC Nuts.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when VKC Nuts imported 791 bags of in-shell walnuts under Bill of Entry No. 9878513 dated January 31, 2019. The company claimed duty exemption under Notification No. 98/2009-Cus dated September 11, 2009, based on DFIA scrips issued against the import item “dietary fibre” under Standard Input Output Norms (SION) E5. The goods were cleared without payment of duty by debiting the DFIA scrip.

However, the Commissioner of Customs later seized the walnuts, alleging that the duty exemption was wrongly claimed and that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent company sought provisional release of the goods, which was granted by the adjudicating authority on June 28, 2019, subject to stringent conditions, including furnishing a bond of ₹36,54,847 and a bank guarantee of ₹18,27,423.

Dissatisfied with these conditions, VKC Nuts filed an appeal with the CESTAT, Mumbai. The Tribunal ruled in favor of VKC Nuts, observing that the imported in-shell walnuts were not liable for confiscation and directed their unconditional release. The Tribunal also ordered the return of the bond and bank guarantee furnished by the company.

The Appeal to the Bombay High Court 

The Commissioner of Customs challenged the CESTAT’s decision in the Bombay High Court, proposing two substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the CESTAT was correct in setting aside the conditions imposed by the adjudicating authority for the provisional release of the seized in-shell walnuts.
2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal after ten months from the conclusion of the hearing was justified.
The Commissioner argued that the Tribunal’s decision was premature, as the case was yet to be fully adjudicated. The appellant also contended that the benefit of duty exemption was wrongly claimed and that the seized goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act.

The High Court’s Judgment 

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of VKC Nuts Private Limited. The court made the following observations:
1. No Substantial Question of Law: The court found that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. It noted that the Tribunal had relied on established precedents, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Global Exim and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.  and the Tribunal’s decision in Uni Bourne Food Ingredients LLP vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad-II. Both cases had allowed the import of in-shell walnuts under DFIA scrips for dietary fibre.
2. Technical Opinion: The court highlighted the technical opinion provided by the Joint Director of Jawahar Customs House Laboratory, which stated that walnuts could be used as a source of dietary fibre in the manufacture of biscuits, cookies, and confectionery. The Commissioner of Customs did not present any evidence to refute this opinion.
3. Arbitrary Actions: The court noted that the same communication from the Commissioner of Customs had allowed the release of 794 bags of in-shell walnuts imported under DFIA scrips for “nut and nut products” while seizing the 791 bags imported under “dietary fibre.” The court deemed this action arbitrary and inconsistent.
4. Provisional Release Conditions: The court emphasized that Section 110A of the Customs Act provides the adjudicating authority with discretion regarding the conditions for provisional release. However, the Tribunal also has the authority to exercise this discretion. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal’s decision to order the unconditional release of the goods.
5. Timeliness of the Tribunal’s Order: The court dismissed the appellant’s argument regarding the delay in the Tribunal’s decision, stating that there is no statutory limitation under the Customs Act for passing an order after the conclusion of a hearing.
Key Takeaways

This case highlights several important legal principles:
1. DFIA Scheme and Transferability: Once the transferability of a DFIA is approved, customs authorities cannot impose restrictive conditions on the transferee to deny duty exemptions, as long as the imported goods are covered under the description and quantity mentioned in the DFIA.
2. Role of Technical Opinions: Technical opinions play a crucial role in determining the classification and usability of imported goods. In this case, the court relied on the opinion of the Joint Director, Jawahar Customs House Laboratory, which was not contested by the appellant.
3. Consistency in Adjudication: The court emphasized the importance of consistency in decisions by customs authorities, highlighting the arbitrary nature of allowing the release of one set of goods while seizing another set of identical goods.
4. Judicial Precedents: The court reaffirmed the importance of adhering to established legal precedents, particularly when similar cases have been decided by other High Courts.
Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in favor of VKC Nuts Private Limited is a landmark judgment that underscores the importance of adhering to legal precedents, respecting technical opinions, and ensuring consistency in administrative actions. The dismissal of the appeal serves as a reminder to customs authorities to exercise their powers judiciously and in accordance with established legal principles. This case is a significant win for importers operating under the DFIA scheme and sets a precedent for similar disputes in the future.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
January 1, 2026
CESTAT Mumbai Resolves Dispute on Job Work and Advance License Compliance Under Customs Notification
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 31.12.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Resolves Dispute on Job Work and Advance License Compliance Under Customs Notification

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 Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Scottish Chemical Industries and M/s Scottish Chemical & Fluxes versus The Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion). This case revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 30/97 and the conditions surrounding the utilization of duty-free imported goods under the Advance License scheme. The judgment, delivered on November 14, 2025, has set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Background of the Case

M/s Scottish Chemical Industries (SCI) and its sister concern, M/s Scottish Chemical & Fluxes (SCF), are manufacturing and exporting units that utilized Advance Licenses to import Per Chloro Ethylene (PCE) for the production and export of HexaChloro Ethane (Hexa) under Standard Input Output Norms (SION). Between 1997 and 2002, SCI imported 5179.374 MT of PCE under nine licenses, using 82% of the material in its own factory and transferring 18% to its sister concern, SCF, for job work. The export obligations were fulfilled, remittances were received, and the licenses were redeemed by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). However, the Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in 2003, alleging misrepresentation and diversion of goods, and demanded Rs. 1.22 crore along with penalties.

Key Issues in the Case 

The case raised two primary issues:
1. Competency of DRI Officers to Issue Show Cause Notices: The appellants argued that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers lacked jurisdiction to issue SCNs, relying on the Mangali Impex case. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Canon India case and subsequent amendments in the Finance Act, 2022, which validated the competency of DRI officers to issue SCNs under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Violation of Notification No. 30/97: The Revenue alleged that SCI violated the “Actual User” condition of the notification by transferring duty-free imported PCE to its sister concern, SCF, for job work without prior permission. The Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the SCN and confirmed the demand, stating that the transfer of goods for job work constituted a violation of the notification.
Tribunal’s Observations and Judgment

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal made the following key observations:
1. Competency of DRI Officers: The Tribunal upheld the competency of DRI officers to issue SCNs, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Canon India and the retrospective validation provided by the Finance Act, 2022.
2. Job Work and Notification No. 30/97: The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of Galaxy Surfactants – 2023 (384) ELT 357, which clarified that raw materials imported under Notification No. 30/97 could be transferred for job work without violating the “Actual User” condition. The High Court held that such transfers do not constitute a sale or transfer to another person, as long as the materials are used for manufacturing and the export obligation is fulfilled.
3. Procedural Lapse: The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants did not obtain prior permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs before sending the goods for job work. However, it deemed this a procedural lapse and ruled that duty could not be imposed solely on this basis.
4. Fulfillment of Export Obligation: The Tribunal noted that SCI had fulfilled its export obligation, and the imported materials were used for manufacturing HexaChloro Ethane, either in its own factory or through job work at SCF. Therefore, the appellants did not violate the conditions of Notification No. 30/97.
Final Decision

Based on the above observations, the Tribunal allowed both appeals (C/890/2010 & C/891/2010) filed by the appellants, setting aside the demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Clarification on DRI Jurisdiction: The judgment reinforces the competency of DRI officers to issue SCNs under Section 28 of the Customs Act, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Canon India and the amendments in the Finance Act, 2022.
2. Job Work Under Notification No. 30/97: The Tribunal’s reliance on the Galaxy Surfactants case provides clarity on the permissibility of transferring duty-free imported goods for job work, as long as the export obligation is fulfilled and the goods are not sold or transferred to another person.
3. Procedural Lapses: The judgment highlights that minor procedural lapses, such as not obtaining prior permission for job work, should not result in the denial of exemption benefits under beneficial notifications.
4. Importance of Fulfilling Export Obligations: The case underscores the significance of fulfilling export obligations under the Advance License scheme, which can mitigate allegations of customs violations.
Conclusion

The CESTAT Mumbai’s judgment in this case is a landmark decision that provides much-needed clarity on the interpretation of Notification No. 30/97 and the conditions surrounding the utilization of duty-free imported goods. It emphasizes the importance of fulfilling export obligations and highlights that procedural lapses should not lead to the denial of exemption benefits. This decision will serve as a guiding precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring a fair and consistent application of customs laws and policies.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
December 31, 2025
High Court of Gujarat Upholds Customs Duty Exemption for Inshell Walnuts Under DFIA Scheme
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 31.12.2025

High Court of Gujarat Upholds Customs Duty Exemption for Inshell Walnuts Under DFIA Scheme

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 December 24, 2025, the High Court of Gujarat delivered a significant judgment in the case of The Commissioner of Customs – Kandla vs. M/s Devam Impex (R/Tax Appeal No. 507 of 2025). The case revolved around the applicability of Customs Notification No. 25/2023-Cus dated April 1, 2023, which provides exemptions from Basic Customs Duty on imports under Transferable Duty-Free Import Authorizations (DFIAs). The court upheld the ruling of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), allowing M/s Devam Impex to import “Inshell Walnuts” under the DFIA scheme.

Background of the Case

M/s Devam Impex, a proprietorship firm holding a valid Importer-Exporter Code (IEC), applied for an Advance Ruling under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962. The firm sought clarity on whether “Inshell Walnuts” could be imported under the DFIA scheme by availing the exemption provided in Notification No. 25/2023-Cus. The DFIA was issued in line with Paragraph Nos. 4.24 and 4.26 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and was based on Standard Input Output Norms (SION) E-1 for Assorted Confectionary Products and SION E-5 for Biscuits.

The CAAR ruled in favor of M/s Devam Impex, stating that “Inshell Walnuts” are permissible for import under the DFIA scheme as they fall under the description of “Other Confectionery Ingredients” and “Dietary Fibre” in the DFIA license. The ruling was challenged by the Commissioner of Customs – Kandla, leading to the present appeal before the High Court of Gujarat.

Key Issues Raised in the Appeal 

The appellant, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, argued that the CAAR’s ruling was erroneous for the following reasons:
1. Misclassification of Walnuts: The appellant contended that “Inshell Walnuts” could not be classified as “Dietary Fibre” under SION E-5, as dietary fibre typically refers to cellulose or pectin-based roughage used in biscuit formulation, not high-fat nuts composed of oils and proteins.
2. Absence of Specific Endorsement: The appellant argued that the exemption was granted despite the absence of specific endorsement of the Harmonized System (HS) Code for “Inshell Walnuts” in the DFIA license.
3. Technical Usage: The appellant claimed that the actual technical usage of “Inshell Walnuts” in the exported products was not established, which is a requirement under Paragraph No. 4.12 of the FTP and the conditions of the Notification.
4. Circulars and Public Notices: The appellant referred to DGFT’s Public Notice No. 20/2025-26, which suspended SION norms in the food sector, including SION E-1 and SION E-5, arguing that the legal basis for the CAAR ruling was no longer valid.
Respondent’s Defense

The respondent, represented by Senior Advocate, countered the appellant’s arguments with the following points:
1. Legal Precedent: The respondent relied on the Bombay High Court’s judgment in The Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V vs. VKC Nuts Private Limited (2022), which affirmed that walnuts, including inshell walnuts, fall within the broader classification of “Dietary Fibre” for DFIA entries.
2. Circular Clarifications: The respondent referred to CBIC Circular No. 20/2025-Cus dated July 24, 2025, which clarified that correlation between technical characteristics, quality, or specifications of inputs used in export products and those imported under DFIA is not required, except for inputs specified under Paragraph No. 4.29 of the FTP. “Inshell Walnuts” are not listed under Paragraph No. 4.29, making the correlation unnecessary.
3. Technical Opinion: The respondent highlighted the technical opinion of the Joint Director, Jawahar Customs House Laboratory, which confirmed that walnuts could be used as a source of dietary fibre in the manufacture of biscuits and confectionery.
4. DFIA License Validity: The respondent argued that the DFIA license issued to them permits the import of goods described as “Other Confectionery Ingredients” and “Dietary Fibre,” and the absence of a specific HS Code does not invalidate the import.
High Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The High Court of Gujarat thoroughly analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and referred to various legal precedents, including the Bombay High Court’s judgment in VKC Nuts Private Limited and decisions by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The court noted the following:
1. Legal Precedent: The Bombay High Court had already ruled that “Inshell Walnuts” are covered under the description of “Dietary Fibre” and can be imported duty-free under the DFIA scheme. The technical opinion supporting this classification was not refuted by the appellant.
2. Clarificatory Circular: The CBIC Circular No. 20/2025-Cus clarified that correlation of technical characteristics, quality, and specifications is not required for inputs not listed under Paragraph No. 4.29 of the FTP. This further supported the respondent’s case.
3. Restricted Scope of Appeal: The court emphasized that the scope of appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962, is limited to cases where the ruling of the authority is profoundly illegal, arbitrary, or unreasonable. The court found no such issues in the CAAR’s ruling.
4. Dismissal of Appeal: The court concluded that the proposed questions of law had already been answered by existing legal precedents and dismissed the appeal. The civil application was also disposed of.
Conclusion

The High Court’s judgment in favor of M/s Devam Impex reinforces the importance of legal precedents and clarificatory circulars in resolving disputes related to customs duty exemptions. The case highlights the complexities of interpreting exemption notifications and the significance of technical opinions in determining the classification of imported goods. By upholding the CAAR’s ruling, the court has provided clarity and certainty to importers and exporters operating under the DFIA scheme, ensuring compliance with the Foreign Trade Policy while facilitating trade.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Gujarat 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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
December 31, 2025
Delhi High Court Addresses Aircraft Usage and Customs Duty Exemption Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 30.12.2025

Delhi High Court Addresses Aircraft Usage and Customs Duty Exemption Dispute

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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

On March 1, 2023, the High Court of Delhi delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, New Delhi v. M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd. This case revolved around the interpretation of Condition No. 104 of Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, as amended by Notification No. 61/2007-Cus, and the compliance requirements for availing duty exemption on imported aircraft used for non-scheduled (passenger) services.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from an order-in-original dated August 31, 2010, issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The order raised a demand of ₹41.37 crore in customs duty and imposed a penalty of ₹10 crore on M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, the Commissioner directed the confiscation of the imported aircraft, with an option to redeem it by paying a redemption fine of ₹30 crore under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

The crux of the case was the alleged non-compliance by the respondent with Condition No. 104 of the Customs Notification. This condition required the aircraft to be used exclusively for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services. The Customs Authority alleged that the aircraft was used for private purposes, thereby violating the undertaking furnished by the respondent.

Tribunal’s Decision

The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled in favor of M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd on September 8, 2022. The Tribunal found that the aircraft was used in accordance with the permit granted by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and was operated for remuneration. It held that the undertaking to use the aircraft for non-scheduled (passenger) services could only be considered violated if the DGCA determined that the aircraft’s use was not in compliance with the permit issued for such services. Since the DGCA had not found any violation and had renewed the permit annually, the Tribunal concluded that the Customs Authority could not demand duty based on the undertaking.

High Court’s Judgment 

The Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the High Court of Delhi, raising several questions for consideration:
1. Whether the Customs Authority has the jurisdiction to examine compliance with the conditions of the exemption notification.
2. Whether the respondent company had complied with the conditions for availing duty exemption under the notification.
3. Whether a non-scheduled (passenger) operator can carry out charter services.
4. Whether the respondent company was obligated to issue tickets to passengers.
The High Court addressed these questions in detail:

1. Jurisdiction of Customs Authority

The court held that the Customs Authority does have the jurisdiction to examine whether the conditions of the exemption notification were fulfilled. This decision was consistent with the court’s earlier ruling in East India Hotels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Central GST, New Delhi (CUSAA 5/2020).

2. Compliance with Condition No. 104

The court found that the respondent had complied with Condition No. 104 of the notification. It noted that the aircraft was used for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services for remuneration, as required by the condition. The court emphasized that the DGCA had not found any violation of the permit for non-scheduled (passenger) services and had renewed the permit annually. Therefore, the respondent was deemed to have fulfilled the conditions of the exemption notification.

3. Charter Services by Non-Scheduled Operators 

The court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that non-scheduled (passenger) operators are permitted to carry out charter services, provided they comply with the DGCA’s permit conditions.

4. Obligation to Issue Tickets 

The court clarified that the respondent was not obligated to issue tickets to passengers to comply with the definition of non-scheduled (passenger) services. The absence of a published tariff did not imply that the aircraft was used for private purposes.

Final Verdict

The High Court ruled in favor of M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs. The court concluded that the respondent had complied with the conditions of the exemption notification and was entitled to duty exemption. The penalty and redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner were also overturned.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment is a landmark decision in the realm of customs law, particularly concerning the interpretation of exemption notifications and the role of regulatory authorities like the DGCA. It underscores the importance of adhering to the conditions of permits issued by regulatory bodies and clarifies the scope of non-scheduled (passenger) services.

The case also highlights the need for clear guidelines and coordination between different regulatory authorities, such as the Customs Authority and the DGCA, to avoid conflicting interpretations of compliance requirements.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in favor of M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd is a significant victory for the respondent and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. It reinforces the principle that compliance with DGCA permits is a key factor in determining adherence to exemption notifications under customs law. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of regulatory clarity and the need for authorities to work in tandem to ensure fair and consistent enforcement of the law.

Connected Matter

CESTAT Ahmedabad Ruled on Customs Duty Exemptions for Aircraft Importers

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Delhi 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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
December 30, 2025
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Reclassification of I-STAT Analyzer Cartridges
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 30.12.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Reclassification of I-STAT Analyzer Cartridges

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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Sandor Medicaids Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports). This case revolved around the classification of cartridges used in the I-STAT Analyzer, a handheld diagnostic tool, under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The judgment, delivered on December 24, 2025, has set a precedent for the classification of similar products under the Customs Tariff.

Background of the Case

The appellant, M/s Sandor Medicaids Pvt. Ltd., imported cartridges for the I-STAT Analyzer, a diagnostic device used for analyzing various blood parameters. The appellant classified these cartridges under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9027, which covers instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis. This classification allowed the appellant to avail the benefit of Notification No. 25/2005-Customs.

However, the Revenue issued a show-cause notice in April 2023, alleging that the cartridges were misclassified and should instead fall under CTH 3822, which covers diagnostic or laboratory reagents. The Revenue also imposed a differential duty of ₹5,06,61,014, a redemption fine of ₹2,30,00,000, and a penalty equal to the duty amount under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Key Issues in Dispute 

The case raised two primary issues:
1. Classification of the Cartridges: Whether the cartridges used in the I-STAT Analyzer should be classified under CTH 3822 (diagnostic or laboratory reagents) or CTH 9027 (instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis).
2. Limitation Period: Whether the show-cause notice issued by the Revenue was valid, given that it was issued beyond the normal limitation period of two years under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments
1. Classification: The appellant argued that the cartridges are essential accessories for the I-STAT Analyzer and should be classified under CTH 9027. They cited a previous ruling by the CESTAT Regional Bench, Hyderabad (Final Order No. A/30019/2023), which had held that similar cartridges were classifiable under CTH 9027.
2. Limitation: The appellant contended that the show-cause notice was issued beyond the two-year limitation period. They argued that there was no suppression or misdeclaration, as the products were clearly described in the Bills of Entry.
Revenue’s Arguments
1. Classification: The Revenue maintained that the cartridges should be classified under CTH 3822, as they are diagnostic reagents used for medical diagnosis.
2. Limitation: The Revenue argued that the extended limitation period was applicable due to alleged misdeclaration by the appellant.
CESTAT’s Observations and Judgment 

Classification of Cartridges 

The Tribunal analyzed the technical literature of the I-STAT Analyzer and its cartridges. It noted that the cartridges are single-use products containing microfabricated thin-film electrodes or sensors. These cartridges are designed to work exclusively with the I-STAT Analyzer, which reads the results produced by the cartridges. The Tribunal emphasized the following points:
- Functionality: The cartridges do not produce diagnostic results independently. They must be used with the I-STAT Analyzer, which reads the results based on sensors rather than chemical reactions.
- HSN Notes: Chapter Heading 3822 covers diagnostic reagents that provide results based on chemical reactions, such as pregnancy kits and AIDS diagnostic kits. Since the I-STAT cartridges do not function in this manner, they cannot be classified under CTH 3822.
- Accessory Classification: The Tribunal referred to Section Notes 2(b) of Chapter 90, which state that parts or accessories suitable for use solely with a particular machine or apparatus are to be classified with that machine or apparatus. Therefore, the cartridges were rightly classified as accessories of the I-STAT Analyzer under CTH 9027.
Limitation Period

The Tribunal found that the appellant had clearly described the products as accessories of the I-STAT Analyzer under CTH 9027 in the Bills of Entry. The Revenue had previously disputed the classification of the I-STAT Analyzer and its cartridges in a separate case, which was adjudicated by the Hyderabad Tribunal. Since the description of the products was accurate and there was no evidence of suppression or misdeclaration, the Tribunal held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked.

Final Decision

The CESTAT set aside the impugned order dated March 21, 2024, along with its addendum dated July 10, 2024, and ruled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal held that:
1. The I-STAT Analyzer cartridges are rightly classifiable under CTH 9027 as accessories of the analyzer.
2. The extended limitation period was not applicable, as there was no suppression or misdeclaration.
Implications of the Judgment

This landmark judgment has significant implications for the classification of medical devices and their accessories under the Customs Tariff Act. It reinforces the principle that specific descriptions in the Customs Tariff should be preferred over general descriptions, as per Rule 3 of the General Rules of Interpretation. Additionally, it highlights the importance of technical literature and product functionality in determining the correct classification.

The judgment also underscores the importance of adhering to the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and provides clarity on the conditions under which the extended period can be invoked.

Conclusion

The CESTAT’s decision in this case is a crucial development for importers of medical devices and accessories. It provides clarity on the classification of products under the Customs Tariff and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. By emphasizing the importance of technical specifications and the intended use of products, the judgment ensures that importers are not unfairly penalized due to misclassification allegations.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
December 30, 2025
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Order Denying Duty Drawback on Activated Mobile Phones
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 29.12.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Order Denying Duty Drawback on Activated Mobile Phones

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.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has delivered a significant judgment in favor of M/s Arete Exim, a Rajkot-based proprietary concern, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. The case revolved around the denial of duty drawback claims on the export of activated mobile phones, which were alleged to have been “taken into use” prior to export.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from a consignment exported by M/s Arete Exim in December 2019, which included activated Samsung mobile phones and non-activated Redmi mobile phones. The Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) of the Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, conducted an investigation and concluded that the activated mobile phones were “taken into use” before export, making them ineligible for duty drawback under Rule 3(1) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued in March 2024, proposing recovery of ₹1.57 crore in duty drawback, along with interest and penalties totaling ₹11.6 crore.

Key Arguments and Legal Precedents

During the appeal hearing, the counsel for the appellant, argued that the issue had already been settled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of AIMS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. Union of India & Others. The High Court had ruled that unlocking or activating mobile phones to make them usable in a specific geographical region does not constitute “taken into use” under the Drawback Rules. The court also quashed the CBIC’s clarificatory circular that had formed the basis of the customs department’s claim.

The Delhi High Court’s judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the customs department, thereby affirming the High Court’s decision.

CESTAT’s Observations

The CESTAT Mumbai bench, comprising Hon’ble Judicial Member and Hon’ble Technical Member, thoroughly examined the case records and the precedent set by the Delhi High Court. The bench observed that the activation of mobile phones is merely a configuration process and does not amount to “use” as defined under the Drawback Rules. The tribunal also noted the unreasonable delay of over four years in issuing the show-cause notice, which lacked proper justification.

Final Verdict

In its final order, the CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export). The tribunal ruled that M/s Arete Exim is eligible to retain the duty drawback on the disputed exports made between May 2019 and December 2019, along with consequential benefits. The show-cause notice issued in March 2024 was also quashed due to the unjustifiable delay.

Implications for Exporters

This judgment is a significant win for exporters, as it reinforces the principle that mere activation or configuration of products does not render them “used” under the Drawback Rules. It also highlights the importance of adhering to reasonable timelines in issuing show-cause notices, ensuring fairness in adjudication processes.

Exporters can take solace in the fact that the judiciary continues to uphold their rights and provide clarity on complex regulatory issues. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of challenging unjustified claims and relying on established legal precedents to protect their interests.

Conclusion

The CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in favor of M/s Arete Exim is a milestone in the realm of customs law, providing much-needed clarity on the interpretation of “taken into use” under the Drawback Rules. It underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of exporters and ensuring that regulatory authorities act within the bounds of the law. This judgment will undoubtedly serve as a guiding precedent for similar cases in the future, fostering a fair and transparent trade environment.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
December 29, 2025