ALO Partners Logo

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #TelegramChannel

  • Special Provisions for Perishable and Prohibited Goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962

    Special Provisions for Perishable and Prohibited Goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.04.2026

    Special Provisions for Perishable and Prohibited Goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com . Β 

    The Customs Act, 1962 is the cornerstone of India’s border management, regulating the import, export, and handling of goods.

    Over the years, the Government has issued a series of notifications to address the unique challenges posed by certain goods, especially those that are perishable, depreciate quickly, or are valuable and require special handling.

    This article explains these notifications, their evolution, and the legal framework under Sections 110 and 110A of the Customs Act, with special reference to prohibited goods.

    Evolution of Notifications: Goods Subject to Special Provisions

    The Central Government, under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act, periodically specifies goods that may be disposed of or handled differently due to their nature.

    YearNotification No.Goods Added / AmendedReason
    198631/86-CustomsLiquors, batteries, wrist watches, electronic goods, dangerous drugs, psychotropic substancesPerishable / Valuable
    198942/89-CustomsPhotographic films, medicines, zip fasteners, gold/silver bullion/coinExpanded scope
    19937/93-CustomsFurther amendmentsContinued expansion
    199510/95-CustomsConveyance (vehicles)Substitution
    199612/96-CustomsCurrency (Indian & Foreign)Value concerns
    199890/98-CustomsBall bearings, cellular phonesTechnological goods
    200420/2004-CustomsSoftware, goods not provisionally released within one monthDigital / Procedural
    200532/2005-CustomsPetroleum products, Red SanderEnvironmental / Economic
    200825/2008-CustomsSandalwoodValuable goods

    These notifications ensure that such goods do not deteriorate or lose value while in customs custody.

    Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962: Seizure of Goods

    Section 110 empowers Customs officers to seize goods suspected of being smuggled or violating customs laws.

    Key Provisions

    1. Seizure Authority – Officers may seize goods, documents, or items liable for confiscation.
    2. Time Limits – Goods must be released or confiscation proceedings initiated within the prescribed period.
    3. Special Provisions under Section 110(1A) – Goods specified by notification may be disposed of under special rules.
    4. Disposal of Goods – Perishable, fast depreciating, or valuable goods may be disposed of to prevent loss.

    Section 110A: Provisional Release of Seized Goods

    Section 110A allows provisional release of seized goods, documents, or things subject to:

    • Payment of duty, penalties, or fines
    • Furnishing of security or bond
    • Other conditions imposed by Customs authorities

    This provision helps importers and exporters minimize business disruption during pending proceedings.

    Prohibited Goods under the Customs Act

    Prohibited goods are those whose import or export is banned by law.

    Examples

    • Dangerous drugs
    • Psychotropic substances
    • Certain wildlife products
    • Counterfeit currency
    • Goods banned for environmental or health reasons

    Handling

    • Strict seizure and confiscation
    • Disposal as per Government procedure
    • Swift and secure handling

    Conclusion

    The Customs Act, through Sections 110 and 110A along with various notifications, provides a robust framework for managing perishable, valuable, and prohibited goods.

    It safeguards India’s borders, protects public health and safety, and prevents loss of value of goods in Customs custody.

    Importers, exporters, and Customs officials should remain updated on these provisions to ensure compliance and efficient handling.

    Source: CBIC, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    Customs NotificationsDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai Clarifying Third-Party Export Obligations Under EPCG Scheme

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifying Third-Party Export Obligations Under EPCG Scheme

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.04.2026

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifying Third-Party Export Obligations Under EPCG Scheme

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. Sree Koppammal Cotton Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. versus the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin.

    The matter revolved around alleged fraudulent fulfillment of export obligations under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme and the subsequent denial of customs duty exemptions.

    Background of the Dispute

    1. EPCG Scheme and Imports

    • The Appellant imported capital goods under four EPCG licenses, availing concessional customs duty under Notification No. 97/2004-Cus dated 17.09.2004.
    • Total value of imported capital goods was Rs. 5,38,31,103.
    • Duty foregone amounted to Rs. 1,42,41,266.
    • Export obligation was Rs. 11,39,30,128.

    2. Allegations and Investigation

    • The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the Appellant fraudulently obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) by using shipping bills of unrelated third-party exporters and false certificates.
    • It was alleged that the Appellant had no commercial relationship with those exporters.

    3. Show Cause Notice and Adjudication

    • A show cause notice proposed rejection of EODCs, denial of concessional duty, recovery of differential duty, confiscation, and penalties.
    • The Commissioner of Customs upheld the proposals, leading to appeal before CESTAT.

    Key Legal Issues

    • Whether the Appellant fulfilled export obligations under the EPCG Scheme.
    • Whether Customs authorities could deny exemption after DGFT restored the EODCs.

    Arguments Presented

    Appellant’s Contentions

    Compliance with Policy

    • Capital goods were properly imported and installed.
    • Export obligations were fulfilled through third-party exports as permitted under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures (HBP).

    DGFT’s Final Authority

    • DGFT restored the EODCs after due process.
    • Customs authorities cannot override DGFT’s decision regarding export obligations.

    No Revenue Loss or Double Benefit

    • Disclaimer certificates were issued by third-party exporters.
    • No double benefit was availed.

    Department’s Contentions

    Fraudulent Documentation

    • Shipping bills were allegedly purchased from unrelated exporters.

    Violation of Policy

    • Exported goods were allegedly not manufactured using imported capital goods.

    Independent Jurisdiction

    • Customs argued they could independently proceed where fraud is alleged.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

    Interpretation of Policy and Notification

    • Relevant Customs notifications and FTP permitted third-party exports if shipping bills mentioned both the license holder and third-party exporter.

    DGFT’s Restoration of EODCs

    • DGFT, being the competent authority, restored the EODCs after due process.
    • Later policy changes could not apply retrospectively.

    No Evidence of Double Benefit or Revenue Loss

    • No evidence of double benefit or revenue loss was found.

    Legal Certainty

    • Customs cannot deny exemption once DGFT has accepted fulfillment of export obligations unless DGFT’s order is set aside.

    Final Order and Impact

    • The Tribunal set aside the demand and penalties regarding two EPCG licenses (Nos. 3530002103 & 3530002105).
    • Consequential relief was granted to the Appellant.
    • The ruling emphasizes clear separation of powers between DGFT and Customs.

    Conclusion

    This CESTAT Chennai decision clarifies the interplay between DGFT and Customs authorities in EPCG matters, especially concerning third-party exports.

    It underscores the importance of due process and respecting the finality of DGFT decisions, providing certainty to exporters operating under the EPCG Scheme.

    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

  • CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Customs Duty Demands: Rapeseed Oil Imports from Bangladesh Upheld Under SAFTA Exemption

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Customs Duty Demands: Rapeseed Oil Imports from Bangladesh Upheld Under SAFTA Exemption

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.04.2026

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Customs Duty Demands: Rapeseed Oil Imports from Bangladesh Upheld Under SAFTA Exemption

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com . Β 

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata delivered a landmark judgment on April 27, 2026, concerning the import of crude rapeseed/mustard oils from Bangladesh under the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) Agreement.

    Multiple appeals were filed by importers and their directors challenging the denial of customs duty exemption based on the authenticity of Certificates of Origin and the classification of the imported oils.

    Background

    • Importers Involved: Aone Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., Sowallow Enterprises, Bengani Commodities Pvt. Ltd., V.K. Oils Ltd., and their directors.
    • Period of Dispute: Imports occurred between December 2019 and February 2020.
    • SAFTA Benefit: Importers claimed customs duty exemption under SAFTA supported by Certificates of Origin issued by Bangladeshi authorities.
    • Revenue’s Allegation: The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) argued that the imported oils had less than 2% Erucic Acid, classifying them as Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed (LEAR) or Canola Oil, and contended that Bangladesh lacked the capability to produce such rapeseed.

    Key Legal and Procedural Issues

    1. Authenticity of Certificates of Origin

    • Indian authorities sought verification from Bangladesh, which confirmed the certificates and local origin of the rapeseed.
    • CESTAT held that unless a certificate is cancelled or proven fraudulent, Indian Customs cannot unilaterally reject it.

    2. Sample Testing and Classification

    • At import, samples were tested by CRCL, with results showing both above and below 2% Erucic Acid.
    • DRI selectively retested a few samples and attempted to apply those findings to all consignments.
    • The Tribunal held such extrapolation legally unsustainable.

    3. Procedural and Legal Compliance

    • All documents, including lab reports and certificates, were submitted at the time of import.
    • No suppression or fraudulent conduct by importers was established.
    • Extended limitation for Show Cause Notices was held time-barred.

    4. Impact of Legal Amendments

    • Section 28DA of the Customs Act came into force after the imports in question and had no retrospective application.

    Tribunal’s Findings

    The Tribunal set aside all demands, interest, and penalties imposed by Customs and granted consequential relief to the importers.

    It reaffirmed that:

    1. Verified Certificates of Origin are conclusive unless cancelled.
    2. Selective sample testing cannot determine liability for all consignments.
    3. No suppression or fraud was proved.
    4. Proceedings were time-barred.

    Broader Implications

    • Reinforces the sanctity of Certificates of Origin under trade agreements.
    • Clarifies limits of Customs reassessment powers.
    • Protects importers’ rights through procedural fairness.

    Conclusion

    The CESTAT Kolkata decision is a landmark ruling for importers seeking preferential duty benefits under SAFTA and similar agreements. It highlights the importance of documentary evidence, procedural integrity, and respect for international certification 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

  • CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies Classification of Imported Gold Chains

    CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies Classification of Imported Gold Chains

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.04.2026

    CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies Classification of Imported Gold Chains

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, recently adjudicated a significant case involving the classification and clearance of imported gold jewellery, specifically gold chains in running lengths.

    The dispute centered on whether these goods should be classified as finished jewellery or as semi-manufactured gold, impacting customs duties, penalties, and the right to re-export.

    Case Background

    M/s Ram Aabhoshan, a registered proprietary firm from Agra, imported assorted 22K gold jewellery from Indonesia, declaring the goods under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 7113 1990, which covers articles of jewellery and parts thereof, of precious metal.

    The firm claimed exemption from basic customs duty under a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) notification and paid IGST at 3%.

    However, customs authorities withheld clearance, questioning the classification and suggesting that the goods were semi-manufactured gold, not finished jewellery.

    The goods were examined by the Jewellers’ Association, which confirmed their weight, purity, and value. Despite this, a show cause notice was issued proposing reclassification under CTI 7108 1300 (gold in other semi-manufactured forms), confiscation, and penalties.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Classification of Goods

    • The primary issue was whether gold chains in running lengths, which require cutting and addition of hooks, are finished jewellery (CTI 7113 1990) or semi-manufactured gold (CTI 7108 1300).
    • Customs authorities argued that the chains were unfinished and not ready-to-use jewellery.
    • The appellant contended that mere cutting and adding hooks does not change the essential character of the product. The chains are intended for personal adornment and therefore qualify as jewellery.

    2. Confiscation and Penalties

    • Customs authorities imposed redemption fine and penalty, alleging improper import and misclassification.
    • The appellant argued that the goods were freely importable, properly declared, and that the dispute concerned only classification, not misdeclaration or prohibited import.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

    Interpretation of Customs Tariff Act and HSN

    • The Tribunal referred to Chapter Note 9(a) of Chapter 71, which defines articles of jewellery as small objects of personal adornment, including necklaces and chains.
    • Rule 2(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI) states that incomplete or unfinished articles having the essential character of the finished article should be classified as finished goods.
    • The Tribunal found that gold chains in running lengths, requiring only cutting and hooks, possess the essential character of finished jewellery.

    Precedents and Case Law

    • The Tribunal cited Supreme Court and High Court decisions affirming that mere cutting or slitting does not constitute manufacture or alter the product’s essential character.

    Customs Policy and Import Restrictions

    • The Tribunal clarified that restrictions on gold imports by nominated agencies apply only to gold used as input for manufacturing, not to finished jewellery.

    Confiscation and Penalty

    • Since the goods were properly declared and the dispute related only to classification, confiscation and penalties were held to be unsustainable.

    Final Order and Implications

    • The Tribunal set aside the reclassification, redemption fine, and penalty.
    • It confirmed that the imported gold chains are rightly classifiable under CTI 7113 1990 as jewellery.
    • The order provides relief to the appellant and sets a precedent for similar cases involving classification of jewellery versus semi-manufactured gold.

    Practical Takeaways for Importers

    1. Accurate Classification

    Importers should ensure goods are classified based on their essential character and intended use, with reference to relevant chapter notes and GRI rules.

    2. Documentation

    Certificates of origin, examination reports, and clear declarations are crucial in defending classification and avoiding penalties.

    3. Legal Precedents

    Familiarity with relevant case law can strengthen arguments in disputes relating to classification and manufacturing processes.

    Conclusion

    The Ram Aabhoshan CESTAT Bangalore order underscores the importance of proper classification of imported gold jewellery and clarifies the legal standards for distinguishing finished articles from semi-manufactured forms. Importers can rely on this precedent to navigate customs disputes and ensure compliance with tariff regulations.

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    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

  • CESTAT Hyderabad Protects Importer in Fitness Equipment Valuation Dispute

    CESTAT Hyderabad Protects Importer in Fitness Equipment Valuation Dispute

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.04.2026

    CESTAT Hyderabad Protects Importer in Fitness Equipment Valuation Dispute

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    ​​ ​​   β€‹β€‹ ​ ​​​  β€‹ ​

    This article provides an in-depth analysis of a significant legal case involving M/S Sachdev Overseas Fitness Private Limited, which was heard by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Hyderabad. The case centers on allegations of undervaluation and evasion of customs duties during the import of fitness equipment from China and Taiwan. The proceedings, evidence, legal arguments, and final decision offer valuable insights into customs law, valuation rules, and the evidentiary standards required in such cases.

    Background of the Case

    Sachdev Overseas Fitness Pvt. Ltd. (SOFPL) imports fitness equipment under the brand ‘Aerofit’ from China and Taiwan. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received intelligence suggesting that SOFPL was evading customs duties by mis-declaring the value of imported goods. The goods were shipped directly from Chinese manufacturers, but invoices with lower values were issued by a Taiwanese intermediary, Shri Durga Prasad Khera (alias Rajan Khera).

    Investigation and Evidence

    DRI officers conducted searches at SOFPL’s office and the residence of its authorized signatory. They recovered:

    • Invoices from Chinese manufacturers to the Taiwanese supplier (showing higher values).
    • Invoices from the Taiwanese supplier to SOFPL (showing lower values).
    • Digital evidence (pen drives and hard disks) sent for forensic analysis.
    • Statement of Accounts (SOA) from a pen drive, indicating payments through both banking and non-banking channels.

    Goods worth Rs. 7.77 crore were seized from various locations, and the total value of imports from 2011 to 2016 was calculated at Rs. 250.58 crore.

    Allegations by the Revenue

    The Revenue alleged that:

    • SOFPL declared lower values to customs and paid duties on these values.
    • The difference between the manufacturer’s price and the declared value was paid through individuals, outside banking channels.
    • The SOA and recovered invoices established a pattern of undervaluation.
    • Differential duty of Rs. 30.9 crore was calculated based on evidence and extrapolation.

    Legal Framework

    The case examined the following legal provisions:

    • Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962: Valuation based on transaction value unless rejected under Rule 12.
    • Customs Valuation Rules, 2007: Sequential rules for determining value if transaction value is rejected.
    • Section 65B of the Evidence Act & Section 138C of the Customs Act: Admissibility of electronic evidence.

    Arguments by SOFPL (Respondent)

    SOFPL contested the allegations, arguing:

    • The SOA from the pen drive was not proven to belong to SOFPL, nor was its authorship established.
    • No investigation was conducted to identify or question individuals named in the SOA.
    • All payments were made through banks; no evidence of cash payments existed.
    • The procedure for admitting electronic evidence was not followed.
    • The alleged undervaluation was based on assumptions and extrapolation, not direct evidence.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Decision

    The Tribunal made several key observations:

    • Transaction Value Principle: Each import must be assessed based on its transaction value. Extrapolation from one case to others is not legally permissible.
    • Evidentiary Standards: The pen drive and SOA were inadmissible as evidence since the required legal procedures (certificates, authorship, chain of custody) were not followed.
    • Discounts and Business Logic: The repeated sale of goods at a loss by the Taiwanese supplier was unusual and raised doubts, but no further investigation was conducted to clarify this anomaly.
    • Lack of Corroboration: No corroborative evidence was provided for alleged cash payments or undervaluation beyond the SOA.
    • Legal Precedents: The Tribunal distinguished the present case from earlier Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing the amended customs law’s focus on transaction value.

    Final Outcome

    The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s order, dropping all proceedings against SOFPL. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, as the evidence was insufficient and the legal requirements for rejecting transaction value and admitting electronic evidence were not met.

    Key Takeaways

    • Transaction Value is Paramount: Customs duty must be assessed on the actual transaction value for each import, not on extrapolated or averaged values.
    • Evidentiary Requirements: Electronic evidence must comply with strict legal standards to be admissible.
    • Investigative Diligence: Authorities must thoroughly investigate anomalies and corroborate evidence before drawing conclusions.
    • Legal Safeguards: The case reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements in customs investigations.

    Conclusion

    This case serves as a landmark in customs law, highlighting the complexities of international trade, valuation, and evidence. It underscores the necessity for robust investigation, proper documentation, and strict adherence to legal procedures. Importers and customs authorities alike must ensure transparency and compliance to avoid disputes and penalties.

    Connected Matter

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Allegations of Misdeclaration and Undervaluation in Coral Import

    Source: CESTAT Hyderabad

    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

  • CESTAT Mumbai Ruled on DEPB License Validity and Duty Exemption

    CESTAT Mumbai Ruled on DEPB License Validity and Duty Exemption

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.04.2026

    CESTAT Mumbai Ruled on DEPB License Validity and Duty Exemption

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com . Β 

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Saguna Poultry Farm Ltd. (now M/s Saguna Foods Pvt. Ltd.) versus the Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva. This case revolved around the eligibility and validity of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) licenses, their impact on customs duty exemption, and the correct valuation of import/export goods. The outcome clarifies the legal position for importers who purchase DEPB licenses in good faith, even if those licenses were originally obtained through fraudulent means by the seller.

    Background of the Case

    Saguna Poultry Farm Ltd. purchased DEPB licenses from a third party, M/s Thakur Impex, using proper banking channels. These licenses were used for duty-free import of goods, with two Bills of Entry filed in early 2011. However, investigations revealed that the original licensee had obtained the DEPB scrips using fraudulent documents, leading to their cancellation by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).

    A show cause notice was issued to Saguna Poultry Farm, alleging that since the DEPB scrips were fraudulently obtained and subsequently cancelled, the company was not entitled to customs duty exemption and was liable for additional duty, interest, and penalty.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Validity of DEPB Licenses at the Time of Import:
      • Whether Saguna Poultry Farm could claim duty exemption using DEPB licenses that were valid at the time of import but later cancelled due to fraud by the original licensee.
    2. Liability for Duty, Interest, and Penalty:
      • Whether the importer, who purchased the licenses in good faith, should be penalized for fraud committed by the seller.
    3. Extended Period of Demand:
      • Whether customs authorities could invoke an extended period for demanding duty, given there was no misdeclaration or fraud by the importer.

    Tribunal’s Findings and Reasoning

    Distinction Between Genuine and Forged Scrips

    The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between:

    • Genuine scrips issued by DGFT (even if obtained by fraud):Β If the license was valid and issued by the authority, the exemption cannot be denied to the importer who used it during its validity, even if it was later cancelled.
    • Forged or fake scrips not issued by DGFT:Β If the scrips were never issued by the authority and were forged, exemption is not available.

    Relevant Precedents

    The Tribunal relied on previous decisions, including:

    • Apar Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai:Β Established that importers using validly issued licenses are entitled to exemption, even if the license was later cancelled due to fraud by the original holder.
    • Borax Morarji Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai:Β Reinforced the principle that subsequent cancellation does not affect imports made when the license was valid.

    Tribunal’s Conclusion

    • The DEPB licenses used by Saguna Poultry Farm were validly issued by DGFT and not forged.
    • The company purchased the licenses in good faith and used them while they were valid.
    • Subsequent cancellation of the licenses does not retroactively invalidate the imports or the exemption claimed.
    • The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing the appeal and confirming that Saguna Poultry Farm is entitled to duty exemption.

    Implications for Importers and Exporters

    • Good Faith Purchasers Protected:Β Importers who purchase validly issued DEPB licenses through proper channels are protected, even if the original licensee committed fraud.
    • Customs Duty Exemption:Β Duty exemption cannot be denied if the license was valid at the time of import, regardless of later cancellation.
    • No Penalty for Innocent Importers:Β Penalties and extended demand periods are not justified if the importer did not commit fraud or misdeclaration.

    Conclusion

    The Saguna Poultry Farm CESTAT Mumbai case sets a clear precedent for the treatment of DEPB licenses and customs duty exemption. It reinforces the principle that importers acting in good faith, using validly issued licenses, should not be penalized for fraud committed by others.Β This judgment provides clarity and security for businesses engaged in import/export activities under India’s export incentive schemes.

    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

  • CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Demand on DFIA Imports: No Suppression, Extended Limitation Not Invocable

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Demand on DFIA Imports: No Suppression, Extended Limitation Not Invocable

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.04.2026

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Demand on DFIA Imports: No Suppression, Extended Limitation Not Invocable

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com . Β 

    ​​ ​​   β€‹β€‹ ​ ​​​  β€‹ ​

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai recently delivered a significant judgment in the case involving M/s. TaraJyot Polymers Limited and the Commissioner of Customs Chennai-II. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, its background, legal issues, and the final decision, offering insights into customs duty exemption and the limitation period under Indian law.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. TaraJyot Polymers Limited, based in Kolkata, imported goods under Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) licenses originally issued to M/s. Pan Parag India Ltd., Kanpur. These licenses allowed duty-free imports, provided certain export obligations and procedural requirements were met. However, investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Lucknow revealed irregularities in exports and alleged manipulation of export documents by several exporters, including Pan Parag India Ltd., Kothari Products Ltd., and others.

    The authorities found that these exporters had contravened provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) by failing to disclose technical characteristics, quality, and specifications of essential oils used in manufacturing pan-masala/gutkha. As a result, show cause notices (SCNs) were issued, and several DFIA licenses were either cancelled or penalized.

    Legal Issues Raised

    The Revenue contended that TaraJyot Polymers had availed undue benefits of import duty exemption based on DFIA licenses issued on the strength of manipulated export documents. The main allegation was that the import duty was short-paid due to fraudulent export undertakings, making the import incentives inadmissible.

    TaraJyot Polymers, however, argued that:

    • They were bona fide purchasers of the DFIA licenses.
    • At the time of import and issuance of the notice, the licenses were valid.
    • The imports under these licenses could not be deemed illegal.
    • The demand for duty was barred by limitation, as the SCN was issued 2Β½ years after the imports, exceeding the one-year period prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    • There was no allegation of suppression of facts to justify invoking the extended limitation period.

    Tribunal Proceedings

    The case was heard by Judicial and Technical. The appellant’s counsel focused on the limitation issue, citing several precedents, including:

    • Commissioner Vs Leader Values Ltd. [2008 (227) ELT A29 (SC)]
    • Pee Jay International Vs Commissioner of Customs [2016 (340) ELT 625 (P&H)]
    • Binani Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2010 (259) ELT 247 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]

    The Revenue relied on the impugned order, arguing for the sustainability of the demand.

    Key Findings and Decision

    The Tribunal noted:

    • The facts were undisputed: imports occurred on 17.05.2011, SCN was issued on 26.11.2014, and license cancellation happened on 17.02.2012 (after the imports).
    • Section 28 of the Customs Act prescribes a one-year period for recovery of short-paid duty unless suppression of facts is alleged, which allows for an extended period.
    • The SCN did not allege suppression of facts, nor did the impugned order discuss limitation.

    Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was confirmed by wrongly invoking the extended limitation period without evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty. The appeal was allowed on the ground of limitation, with consequential benefits to TaraJyot Polymers as per law.

    Conclusion

    This case underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in customs proceedings and the necessity for authorities to substantiate allegations of suppression when seeking to invoke extended periods. The Tribunal’s decision provides clarity for importers relying on DFIA licenses and reinforces the principle of legal certainty in customs law.

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi Distinguishes Calculation Error from Suppression of Facts

    CESTAT Delhi Distinguishes Calculation Error from Suppression of Facts

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.04.2026

    CESTAT Delhi Distinguishes Calculation Error from Suppression of Facts

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com . Β 

    ​​ ​​   β€‹β€‹ ​ ​​​  β€‹ ​

    This article explores a significant legal dispute involving customs valuation and duty assessment between M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (now Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.) and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The case, adjudicated by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in April 2026, highlights the complexities of customs valuation, the interpretation of international commercial terms (INCOTERMS), and the responsibilities of importers under Indian customs law.

    Background of the Case

    Ranbaxy Laboratories, engaged in the manufacture and import of pharmaceuticals, filed 173 Bills of Entry between March 2009 and December 2011 through its customs broker, M/s Schenker India Pvt. Ltd. The goods were imported by air, purchased on an ex-works basis, but the ex-works price was declared as Free on Board (FOB) value in the Bills of Entry. The company also declared freight costs, including transportation from the exporter’s factory to the port of export and onward to the place of importation.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Customs Duty Assessment

    Customs duties in India are assessed either on quantity (specific rate) or value (ad valorem rate). When assessed on value, the transaction value (the price paid or payable for delivery at the time and place of importation) is used, typically referred to as Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) price. INCOTERMS like ex-works, FOB, and CIF define the rights and liabilities of buyers and sellers:

    • Ex-works:Β Only costs up to the factory gate are included.
    • FOB:Β Costs up to placing goods on board the vessel/aircraft are included.
    • CIF:Β All costs, including transportation and insurance up to the place of importation, are included.

    2. Valuation Rules and Air Freight Cap

    The Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, specify how transaction values should be adjusted. Rule 10 requires adding certain costs (like transport and insurance) if not already included. For air imports, the fifth proviso to Rule 10(2) caps the transport cost added to the assessable value at 20% of the FOB value, regardless of actual freight paid.

    3. Mis-declaration and Penalties

    The dispute arose because Ranbaxy declared ex-works prices as FOB values and calculated air freight as 20% of the ex-works price, not the FOB value. This led to short assessment and short payment of duty. The Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigated, resulting in a show cause notice and subsequent penalties under various sections of the Customs Act.

    Arguments Presented

    Appellants (Ranbaxy & Schenker India)

    • No Wilful Mis-declaration:Β All import documents were submitted; no suppression or collusion occurred.
    • Incorrect Valuation Method:Β The law does not prescribe a method to calculate assessable value from ex-works price.
    • Ambiguity in Freight Definition:Β The Valuation Rules do not clearly define freight charges.
    • Strict Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes:Β If the rules do not specify a method, duty liability cannot be determined using a method for a different payment term.
    • Penalties Not Justified:Β Interest and penalties should not be imposed.

    Revenue (Customs Department)

    • Wilful Mis-declaration:Β Ex-works prices were wrongly declared as FOB, and lesser freight amounts were declared, justifying extended limitation and penalties.
    • Duty and Interest Payment:Β Payment after the show cause notice does not preclude penalties.
    • Penalties Valid:Β Both company and customs broker knowingly submitted false declarations.
    • Obligation to Declare Correct Value:Β Importers must make truthful declarations; failure invites statutory consequences.

    Tribunal’s Findings and Decision

    • Legal Position on Valuation:Β The Tribunal clarified that the cost of air freight should be 20% of the FOB value, not the ex-works price.Β FOB value includes all costs up to placing goods on board the aircraft, including transport from the factory.
    • Limitation and Penalty:Β The Tribunal found no evidence of intentional evasion or suppression by the importer, customs broker, or officers.Β Oversight occurred on both sides, and the extended period of limitation was not justified.Β Consequently, penalties were set aside.
    • Relief Granted:Β Both appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellants.

    Conclusion

    This case underscores the importance of accurate customs declarations and understanding INCOTERMS in international trade. It also highlights the need for clarity in customs valuation rules and the responsibilities of both importers and customs authorities. The Tribunal’s decision provides guidance on the correct method for calculating assessable value and the circumstances under which penalties and extended limitation can be invoked.

    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

  • Gujarat High Court Mandates Grant of RoDTEP Scheme Benefits to Sugar Exporters Despite Policy Restrictions

    Gujarat High Court Mandates Grant of RoDTEP Scheme Benefits to Sugar Exporters Despite Policy Restrictions

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.04.2026

    Gujarat High Court Mandates Grant of RoDTEP Scheme Benefits to Sugar Exporters Despite Policy Restrictions

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com . Β 

    ​​ ​​   β€‹β€‹ ​ ​​​  β€‹ ​

    In a landmark judgment, the Gujarat High Court addressed the contentious issue of whether sugar exporters are entitled to benefits under the RoDTEP (Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products) scheme, despite changes in export policy that categorized sugar as a “restricted” item. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the arguments presented, and the implications of the court’s decision for exporters and policymakers.

    Background: RoDTEP Scheme and Export Policy Changes

    The RoDTEP scheme was introduced to incentivize exporters by reimbursing duties and taxes that are not refunded through other mechanisms. Sugar exporters, including M/S Satyendra Packaging Limited, had been claiming rebates under this scheme for exports made between January 1, 2021, and December 13, 2022.

    However, the government revised the export policy for sugar via Notification No.10/2015-2020 dated May 24, 2022, moving sugar (ITC HS Codes 17011490 and 17019990) from the “free” category to “restricted”. Export was permitted only with specific permission from the Directorate of Sugar, Department of Food and Public Distribution.

    The Petitioners’ Case

    The petitioners argued that:

    • They exported sugar with the required permissions from the Directorate of Sugar.
    • The denial of RoDTEP benefits was arbitrary, as they complied with all policy conditions and government notifications.
    • The issue was already settled in a previous Gujarat High Court decision (M/s.Β Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd vs. Union of India), which allowed RoDTEP benefits for similar exports.

    Government’s Stand

    The government contended that:

    • As per paragraph 4.55(iv) of the RoDTEP scheme, products listed as “restricted” in Schedule 2 of the Export Policy are ineligible for RoDTEP benefits.
    • The change in policy was a matter of public interest and within the government’s prerogative, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kasinka Trading vs. Union of India.

    Court’s Analysis and Decision

    The High Court found that:

    • The facts of the case were identical to the earlier Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd decision, which permitted RoDTEP benefits for sugar exporters who complied with government conditions.
    • The government had issued multiple notifications and circulars allowing export of sugar with specific permissions and quota allocations.
    • The basic objective of the RoDTEP scheme is to incentivize exporters, and denying benefits to those who fulfilled all conditions was unjustified.

    Key Directions Issued by the Court

    • Petitioners are entitled to claim RoDTEP benefits for sugar exports, even if the claim was not mentioned in the shipping bills.
    • Applications for RoDTEP benefits will not be time-barred due to delayed claims.
    • Authorities must process claims irrespective of their mention in shipping bills and provide a hearing if adjudicatory proceedings are required.
    • The respondents (government authorities) are directed to grant RoDTEP benefits to petitioners who exported sugar with specific permissions as per relevant notifications.

    Implications for Exporters and Policy

    This judgment clarifies that exporters who comply with all government conditions and obtain necessary permissions should not be arbitrarily denied incentives under schemes like RoDTEP. It reinforces the principle that policy changes must be implemented fairly and transparently, ensuring that genuine exporters are not penalized.

    Conclusion

    The Gujarat High Court’s decision is a significant victory for sugar exporters and sets a precedent for similar cases involving export incentives. It underscores the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring that government policies are applied justly and that exporters receive the benefits they are entitled to under schemes like RoDTEP.

    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

  • CESTAT Chennai Settles Classification of Imported Dialysis Solutions

    CESTAT Chennai Settles Classification of Imported Dialysis Solutions

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.04.2026

    CESTAT Chennai Settles Classification of Imported Dialysis Solutions

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com . Β 

    ​​ ​​   β€‹β€‹ ​ ​​​  β€‹ ​

    This article provides a detailed overview of a significant legal order issued by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, regarding the classification of imported medical dialysis solutions. The case involves M/s. Baxter (India) Pvt. Ltd. and addresses the correct customs tariff heading for “Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin, Fnb4984t Dialysis Fluids C.A.P.D.” The outcome has important implications for importers, customs authorities, and the broader medical industry.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Baxter (India) Pvt. Ltd. imported dialysis solutions and filed Home Consumption Bills of Entry, seeking classification under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9018. This heading pertains to instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences. However, customs authorities reclassified the goods under CTH 3004, which covers medicaments for therapeutic or prophylactic uses. This reclassification denied Baxter the benefit of certain exemption notifications, resulting in a demand notice and subsequent legal proceedings.

    Key Events:

    • Bills of Entry Filed:Β May and June 2010 for dialysis solutions.
    • Initial Classification Sought:Β CTH 9018 (medical instruments/appliances).
    • Reclassification by Authorities:Β CTH 3004 (medicaments).
    • Exemption Denied:Β Under Notification No.21/2002, Sl.No.357A, and Notification No.06/2006-Central Excise, Sl.Β No.59.
    • Demand Notice Issued:Β October 2010 under Section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962.
    • Order-in-Original Issued:Β August 2013, confirming the demand.
    • Appeal Dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals):Β June 2025.
    • Appeal to CESTAT Chennai:Β Resulted in the present order.

    Legal Arguments and Tribunal’s Reasoning

    The central issue was whether the imported dialysis solution should be classified under CTH 9018 or CTH 3004. Baxter argued that previous decisions, including those by the Chennai Bench and the Hon’ble Apex Court, had already settled the classification in their favor under CTH 9018.

    The Tribunal reviewed:

    • The impugned order and prior decisions.
    • The Final Order No.40615/2015 (June 2015), which had considered identical goods and issues.
    • The Apex Court’s decision in Baxter’s own case.
    • Orders from Delhi and Kolkata Benches supporting Baxter’s position.

    The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already considered the relevant facts and justified classification under CTH 9018. Attempts to differentiate the facts in the impugned order were not persuasive.

    Final Decision and Implications

    The CESTAT Chennai concluded that the issue of classification for the dialysis solution was no longer open to debate (no more res integra). The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed Baxter’s appeal, and granted consequential benefits as per law.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Classification Settled:Β Dialysis solutions like “Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin” are to be classified under CTH 9018.
    • Exemption Benefits Restored:Β Importers are eligible for exemption notifications previously denied.
    • Legal Precedent:Β The decision reinforces consistency across regional benches and aligns with the Apex Court’s ruling.

    Conclusion

    This CESTAT Chennai order is a landmark for importers of medical solutions, clarifying tariff classification and ensuring access to exemption benefits. It underscores the importance of judicial consistency and the role of appellate tribunals in resolving classification disputes. Importers should review their customs filings in light of this decision to ensure compliance and maximize benefits.

    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