𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐎)

Tag: #TaxLitigations

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹25 Lakh Penalty on Logistics Company
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 17.02.2026

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹25 Lakh Penalty on Logistics Company

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment on February 12, 2026, in the Customs Appeals No. 58496 and 58497 of 2013. This case involved M/s Committed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, who challenged the penalties imposed on them under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Justice, has set a precedent in interpreting the provisions of the Customs Act, particularly Section 108 and Section 138B.

Background of the Case

The appeals arose from an Order-in-Original dated March 31, 2013, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The Commissioner imposed penalties of Rs. 25 lakhs each on M/s Committed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act. The penalties were based on allegations that the appellants had provided delivery orders for 26 containers to fictitious firms, facilitating smuggling activities. The cargo was found to be misdeclared, with goods valued at Rs. 49.31 crores seized.

The allegations against the appellants were primarily based on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. These statements indicated that director and his company had issued delivery orders without verifying the identity of the recipients, thereby abetting smuggling activities.

Key Legal Issues 

The Tribunal identified two main issues for consideration:
1. Whether the appellants abetted the act of smuggling, justifying the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act.
2. Whether the Commissioner erred in relying solely on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act to impose penalties.
Legal Analysis

Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act 

Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act allows for the imposition of penalties on individuals who abet the doing or omission of an act that renders goods liable for confiscation. However, the Supreme Court in Shri Ram vs. The State of U.P. clarified that abetment requires intentional aiding and active complicity. Mere facilitation without knowledge does not constitute abetment.

In this case, the Tribunal noted that there was no allegation or evidence to suggest that the appellants had knowledge of the misdeclaration in the containers. Therefore, the penalty under Section 112(a)(i) could not be imposed solely on the basis of facilitation.

Section 108 and Section 138B of the Customs Act 

Section 108 of the Customs Act empowers customs officers to summon individuals for evidence and document production during inquiries. Statements recorded under this section are admissible as evidence under Section 138B, but only if certain conditions are met:
1. The person who made the statement is dead, cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence.
2. The person is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority, and the authority forms an opinion that the statement should be admitted in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal emphasized that the procedure under Section 138B is mandatory. Statements recorded under Section 108 cannot be relied upon unless the person making the statement is examined as a witness and the adjudicating authority admits the statement as evidence. This ensures fairness and prevents reliance on statements potentially obtained under coercion.

Judgment and Key Takeaways

The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on M/s Committed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Director, holding that:
1. The appellants could not be penalized under Section 112(a)(i) as there was no evidence of their knowledge of misdeclaration in the containers.
2. The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were not admissible as evidence since the mandatory procedure under Section 138B was not followed.
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act. It highlights that penalties cannot be imposed solely on the basis of statements recorded during investigations unless they are properly admitted as evidence.

Implications of the Judgment
1. Strengthening Procedural Fairness: The judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of Section 138B, ensuring that statements recorded during investigations are subjected to judicial scrutiny before being admitted as evidence.
2. Clarification on Abetment: The Tribunal clarified that mere facilitation without knowledge does not amount to abetment under Section 112(a)(i). This protects individuals and businesses from unjust penalties.
3. Precedent for Future Cases: The decision serves as a guiding principle for similar cases, emphasizing the need for evidence of mens rea (intent) and strict adherence to procedural requirements.
Conclusion

The CESTAT’s decision in Customs Appeals No. 58496 and 58497 of 2013 is a landmark judgment that upholds the principles of justice and procedural fairness. It provides clarity on the interpretation of Sections 108, 112(a)(i), and 138B of the Customs Act, ensuring that penalties are imposed only when supported by admissible evidence and intentional complicity. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of due process in customs adjudication and the protection of rights for individuals and businesses.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 17, 2026
CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Reclassification of Alloy Steel Scrap as Alloy Steel Bars
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 17.02.2026

CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Reclassification of Alloy Steel Scrap as Alloy Steel Bars

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chandigarh recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Shri Balaji International vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana. This case revolved around the classification of imported goods and the subsequent imposition of penalties and fines. The judgment, pronounced on February 16, 2026, provides valuable insights into the interpretation of customs laws and the importance of adhering to section and chapter notes of the Customs Tariff Act.

Background of the Case

M/s Shri Balaji International filed three bills of entry on September 5, 2017, for the clearance of alloy steel scrap under the classification code 7204 2990 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, upon examination by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) of Customs House, Ludhiana, the goods were suspected to be misdeclared. The authorities seized the goods on October 9, 2017, under the belief that they were not scrap but alloy steel bars, which are classified under 7224 9099.

Following an investigation, a show-cause notice was issued on February 8, 2018, and the adjudicating authority reclassified the goods as alloy steel bars, imposing penalties and redemption fines. The appellants challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the lower authority’s order. Consequently, M/s Shri Balaji International filed appeals before the CESTAT.

Key Arguments Presented 

Appellant’s Arguments:
1. Misclassification of Goods: The appellant argued that the Revenue failed to classify the goods as per the relevant section and chapter notes of the Customs Tariff Act. They emphasized that the goods were not usable as alloy steel bars due to their chemical composition and physical condition, and thus should be classified as scrap under 7204 2990.
2. Definition of Waste and Scrap: The appellant referred to Section Note 8 of the Customs Tariff Act, which defines waste and scrap as metal goods that are not usable due to breakage, cutting-up, wear, or other reasons. They contended that the goods met this definition and were unsuitable for their intended use.
3. Chartered Engineer’s Report: The appellant highlighted the findings of the chartered engineer, who confirmed that the goods were off-specification and unsuitable for their intended use due to their chemical composition. The report stated that the material could only be used for melting purposes, further supporting the classification as scrap.
4. Revaluation Concerns: The appellant argued that the authorities revalued the goods without proper justification or reference to contemporaneous prices. They also contended that the case law cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not applicable to their situation.
Respondent’s Arguments:

The Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, emphasizing the chemical composition of the goods as the basis for their classification as alloy steel bars.

Tribunal’s Observations and Decision

After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal made the following observations:
1. Misinterpretation of Section Notes: The Tribunal found that the original and appellate authorities had ignored the relevant section and chapter notes of the Customs Tariff Act, particularly the definition of waste and scrap under Section Note 8.
2. Chartered Engineer’s Report: The Tribunal noted that the chartered engineer’s report clearly stated that the goods were off-specification and unsuitable for their intended use. The report concluded that the material could only be used for melting purposes, which aligns with the definition of scrap.
3. Lack of Evidence: The Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to provide concrete evidence to support the classification of the goods as alloy steel bars. The authorities relied solely on the chemical composition without considering the physical condition and usability of the goods.
4. Unsustainable Classification and Revaluation: The Tribunal held that the classification and revaluation of the goods by the authorities were not sustainable under the law. The goods were deemed to be scrap, and the penalties and fines imposed were set aside.
Final Order

The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by M/s Shri Balaji International, setting aside the impugned orders and granting consequential relief as per the law. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the definitions and guidelines provided in the Customs Tariff Act when classifying goods.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Section Notes: The case highlights the critical role of section and chapter notes in determining the correct classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act.
2. Role of Expert Opinions: The chartered engineer’s report played a pivotal role in establishing the nature of the goods and their classification as scrap.
3. Burden of Proof: The judgment emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to provide concrete evidence when challenging the classification of goods.
4. Judicial Precedence: The Tribunal clarified that judicial precedence must be applied appropriately, considering the specific facts of each case.
Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Chandigarh

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 17, 2026
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Customs Broker License Revocation Over Procedural Lapse
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 16.02.2026

CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Customs Broker License Revocation Over Procedural Lapse

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Chatterji & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. This case revolved around the revocation of a Customs Broker License under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR 2018). The Tribunal’s decision to set aside the revocation order highlights the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and principles of natural justice in adjudication processes.

Background of the Case

The appellant, M/s Chatterji & Co., was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on July 16, 2019, for alleged violations of the provisions of CBLR 2018. This SCN was based on an Offence Report received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on April 30, 2019. Subsequently, the appellant’s Customs Broker License was suspended on May 1, 2019.

The appellant challenged the suspension order, and the CESTAT Kolkata, in its Final Order No. 75731/2024 dated April 19, 2024, set aside the suspension order, citing delayed action by the Revenue authorities. However, the Principal Commissioner of Customs later revoked the appellant’s license through an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated August 16, 2022, which led the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal.

Key Arguments Presented 
1. Violation of Procedural Timelines: The appellant argued that the OIO was passed beyond the stipulated time frame under Regulation 17(7) of CBLR 2018. According to this regulation, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs must pass an order of suspension or revocation within 90 days from the date of submission of the Inquiry Report by the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. In this case, the Inquiry Report was submitted on March 28, 2022, but the OIO was passed on August 16, 2022—well beyond the 90-day limit.
2. Previous Tribunal Orders: The appellant highlighted two previous orders by the Tribunal that set aside similar actions taken by the Revenue authorities. These orders demonstrated that the alleged contraventions were not substantiated and that the suspension of the appellant’s license was unjustified.
3. Compliance with CBLR 2018: The appellant contended that they had fulfilled the requirements under Regulation 10(a), (d), and (e) of CBLR 2018, further challenging the grounds for revocation of their license.
Tribunal’s Observations

The Tribunal carefully examined the timeline of events and the provisions of Regulation 17(7) of CBLR 2018. It noted that the Inquiry Report was submitted on March 28, 2022, and the OIO was passed on August 16, 2022—more than 130 days later. This was a clear violation of the 90-day time limit prescribed under Regulation 17(7). The Tribunal emphasized that the regulation does not provide any saving clause for exceeding this time limit, making the delay a procedural lapse.

The Tribunal also acknowledged its previous orders, which had set aside the suspension of the appellant’s license due to delayed action by the Revenue authorities. These orders further supported the appellant’s case.

Final Decision

In its judgment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by M/s Chatterji & Co. The Tribunal held that the revocation of the Customs Broker License was invalid due to the procedural lapse in adhering to the time limit under Regulation 17(7) of CBLR 2018. The appellant was deemed eligible for consequential relief as per the law.

Key Takeaways
1. Adherence to Procedural Timelines: The case underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural timelines in adjudication processes. The Tribunal’s decision serves as a reminder to authorities to ensure timely action to uphold the principles of natural justice.
2. Significance of Previous Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal’s acknowledgment of its earlier orders highlights the importance of consistency in judicial decisions and the role of precedents in shaping outcomes.
3. Protection of Rights Under CBLR 2018: The judgment reinforces the safeguards provided under CBLR 2018 to Customs Brokers, ensuring that their licenses cannot be arbitrarily revoked without following due process.
Conclusion

The CESTAT Kolkata’s decision in this case is a landmark ruling that emphasizes the need for procedural fairness and timely action by adjudicating authorities. It serves as a precedent for similar cases and provides reassurance to Customs Brokers that their rights under CBLR 2018 will be protected. This judgment is a testament to the judiciary’s role in upholding justice and ensuring accountability in administrative processes.

Source: CESTAT Kolkata

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
February 16, 2026
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside IGST Demand and Penalties
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 16.02.2026

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside IGST Demand and Penalties

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

Appellant’s Arguments

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

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

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

Respondent’s Arguments

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

CESTAT’s Observations and Final Order 

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

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

Date: 14.02.2026

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalty on Customs Broker

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

Key Issues in the Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

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

Date: 14.02.2026

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

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

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

Appeal to CESTAT and Subsequent High Court Proceedings 

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

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

High Court Judgment 

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

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

Conclusion

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

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

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

Date: 13.02.2026

CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Demand in Joss Powder Classification Dispute

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

Key Issues Raised in the Appeals 

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Chennai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

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

Date: 13.02.2026

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

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

Key Arguments Presented

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

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

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

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

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

Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

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

Date: 12.02.2026

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

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

The Petitioner’s Case

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

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

The Court’s Observations

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

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

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 12.02.2026

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

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

Interim Relief Granted 

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

Arguments Presented

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

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

The Court’s Judgment

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

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

Implications of the Judgment

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

Conclusion

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

Source: Kerala High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

February 12, 2026