ALS

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

Tag: #Valuation

  • CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Order Over Coerced Statements and Invalid Valuation

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Order Over Coerced Statements and Invalid Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.03.2026

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Order Over Coerced Statements and Invalid Valuation

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    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 Regional Bench, recently delivered a significant judgment on Customs Appeal No. ​ 40724 of 2024 and related appeals. ​ The case revolved around allegations of undervaluation, misdeclaration, and misuse of Importer Exporter Codes (IECs) by the appellant, and other co-appellants. ​ The judgment, pronounced on March 19, 2026, by Hon’ble Justice and Hon’ble Member – Technical, set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II, and allowed all five appeals. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an order dated June 11, 2024, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II, which rejected the declared value of imported goods under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (CVR, 2007). ​ The Commissioner re-determined the value under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007, and imposed penalties and interest under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The goods were imported through Chennai Port, Nhava Sheva Port, Mumbai, and Kolkata Port, allegedly using dummy IECs controlled by the appellant. ​

    The appellant, Mr. Sachdeva, challenged the order, claiming that the statements used against him were obtained under coercion and physical abuse by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers. ​ He also argued that the rejection of declared value and re-determination of the value were based on inadmissible evidence. ​

    Key Allegations Against the Appellant

    1. Undervaluation of Imported Goods: The appellant allegedly declared only 50% of the actual value of imported goods and sent the remaining amount through hawala channels. ​
    2. Misuse of Dummy IECs: The appellant was accused of using proxy IECs to import goods and evade customs duties. ​
    3. Fabrication of Invoices: The appellant was alleged to have submitted manipulated invoices to customs authorities, which did not match the actual transaction value of the imported goods. ​

    Appellant’s Defense

    The appellant, represented by Advocate, denied all allegations and presented the following arguments:

    1. Coercion and Physical Abuse: The appellant claimed that his statements were obtained under duress, physical assault, and psychological pressure by DRI officers. ​ Medical reports from Tihar Jail and Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital corroborated his claims, documenting multiple bruises and injuries. ​
    2. Retraction of Statements: The appellant retracted his statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, stating they were involuntary and obtained through coercion. ​ The retraction was submitted to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate immediately after the alleged forced statement. ​
    3. Inadmissibility of Evidence: The appellant argued that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be considered relevant unless the procedure under Section 138B of the Customs Act was followed, which was not done. ​
    4. Manipulation of Emails: The appellant contended that the DRI officers used his email account and Wi-Fi connection to send emails and fabricate evidence during his custody. ​

    Key Findings of the Tribunal ​

    After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal made the following observations:

    1. Statements Recorded Under Coercion: The Tribunal found that the appellant’s claims of physical and psychological abuse were supported by medical reports from Tihar Jail and Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. ​ The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were deemed involuntary and inadmissible. ​
    2. Non-Compliance with Section 138B: The Tribunal emphasized that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered relevant unless the procedure under Section 138B is followed. ​ This includes examining the person who made the statement as a witness and providing an opportunity for cross-examination. ​
    3. E-mails and Attachments: The Tribunal noted that the emails and attachments relied upon by the Commissioner were received while the appellant was in DRI custody, and the laptop was in the possession of DRI officers. ​ The Tribunal found no justification for considering these emails as valid evidence. ​
    4. Rejection of Transaction Value: The Tribunal held that the rejection of the declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007, was not sustainable as it was based on inadmissible evidence. ​
    5. Re-determination of Value: The Tribunal found that the re-determination of value under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007, was based on unreliable evidence, including purported price lists and parallel invoices that lacked authenticity.

    Final Judgment

    The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated June 11, 2024, and allowed all five appeals. The demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant and co-appellants were quashed. ​ The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Customs Act, particularly Sections 108 and 138B, to ensure fair and just adjudication. ​

    Significance of the Judgment

    This landmark judgment underscores the importance of following due process in customs investigations and adjudications. ​ It highlights the need for transparency, impartiality, and adherence to legal procedures to prevent misuse of authority and ensure justice. The Tribunal’s decision serves as a reminder that evidence obtained through coercion or without following mandatory legal provisions cannot be relied upon in adjudication proceedings. ​

    This case also sheds light on the complexities of customs valuation and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the process. ​ It reinforces the principle that transaction values cannot be arbitrarily rejected or re-determined without valid and admissible evidence. ​

    Conclusion

    The CESTAT Chennai’s judgment in Customs Appeal No. ​ 40724 of 2024 and related appeals is a significant development in the realm of customs law. ​ It not only provides clarity on the admissibility of evidence under the Customs Act but also sets a precedent for ensuring fair and lawful adjudication processes. ​ This case serves as a crucial reference for legal practitioners, importers, and customs authorities in understanding the nuances of customs valuation and the importance of adhering to statutory provisions.

    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 Mumbai Overturns Customs Valuation

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.02.2026

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Valuation

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    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 idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Kumar Mahendra Exim vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai (Customs Appeal No. ​ 86769 of 2016). ​ This case highlights critical aspects of customs valuation, reassessment, and the importance of adhering to legal provisions under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s Kumar Mahendra Exim, filed a Bill of Entry (B/E) No. ​ 9278749 dated 11.02.2013 for the clearance of imported goods declared as “Knitted Fabrics” under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 6006 4200. ​ The declared value was USD 2.80 per kg, amounting to a total value of USD 61,917.80 for 22,113.5 kgs of goods imported from China. ​ However, during the assessment, the Customs Department enhanced the unit value to USD 4.60 per kg based on a DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) Alert Circular dated 09.05.2011, which indicated under-valuation of fabrics imported from China. ​ Consequently, the appellant paid a differential duty of Rs. ​ 5,75,345/-.

    Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of the declared value, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), arguing that the rejection of the declared value was contrary to the provisions of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. ​ The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that the assessment of the Bill of Entry was not appealable and directed the appellant to approach the lower authority for a speaking order. ​

    The appellant then approached the Tribunal, which remanded the matter to the original authority, directing it to pass a speaking order. ​ The original authority subsequently issued an Order-in-Original dated 27.11.2014, rejecting the declared transaction value and reassessing the value at USD 4.60 per kg under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. ​ The appellant challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the original authority’s decision. ​ This led to the present appeal before the Tribunal. ​

    Key Issues in the Case

    The Tribunal identified two primary issues for determination:

    1. Was the enhancement of the declared value legally sustainable? ​
      • The appellant argued that the enhancement was arbitrary and not based on proper evidence. ​ They contended that the data of contemporaneous imports was not shared with them, and there was no proof that the declared value was not the “actual price paid or payable” for the imported goods. ​
      • The appellant also cited previous judgments, such as Sedna Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Faridabad and Surbhit Impex Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, where similar enhancements based on DRI alerts were rejected. ​
    2. Did the reassessment comply with the legal provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007? ​
      • The Tribunal examined whether the reassessment followed the sequential methodology prescribed under Rules 3 to 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. ​

    Tribunal’s Observations and Judgment ​

    After carefully analyzing the submissions and legal provisions, the Tribunal made the following observations:

    1. Violation of Legal Provisions:
      • The Tribunal noted that the proper officer did not follow the sequential methodology prescribed under Rules 3 to 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. ​ Specifically, Rule 4, which deals with the transaction value of identical goods, was not applied correctly. The comparison of values at the “same commercial level” and “substantially the same quantity” was not examined, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 4. ​
    2. Non-Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice: ​
      • The Tribunal observed that the department did not issue a show-cause notice or provide the appellant with an opportunity for a personal hearing before enhancing the declared value. ​ This was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. ​
    3. Lack of Evidence: ​
      • The department failed to provide evidence that the declared value was not the actual price paid or payable for the imported goods. ​ The Tribunal emphasized that valuation cannot be done arbitrarily based on general alerts or assumptions. ​
    4. Precedents:
      • The Tribunal referred to similar cases, such as Surbhit Impex Pvt. ​ Ltd., where the enhancement of declared value based on DRI alerts was deemed unsustainable due to the lack of reasonable cause to reject the transaction value. ​

    Final Order

    The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was not legally sustainable. ​ It set aside the order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, M/s Kumar Mahendra Exim. ​

    Key Takeaways

    This case underscores the importance of adhering to the legal framework for customs valuation and reassessment. ​ Some key lessons include:

    1. Adherence to Legal Provisions: ​
      • Customs authorities must strictly follow the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, when reassessing the value of imported goods. ​
    2. Principles of Natural Justice: ​
      • Importers must be given a fair opportunity to justify their declared value, and any enhancement must be supported by concrete evidence. ​ Failure to issue a show-cause notice or provide a personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice. ​
    3. Evidence-Based Valuation: ​
      • The rejection of declared value must be based on credible evidence, such as data on contemporaneous imports of identical goods. ​ Arbitrary reliance on general alerts or assumptions is not permissible. ​
    4. Precedents Matter:
      • Previous judgments play a crucial role in shaping the interpretation of legal provisions. Importers and customs authorities should consider relevant case laws to ensure compliance.

    Conclusion

    The judgment in the Kumar Mahendra Exim case serves as a reminder of the need for transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal procedures in customs valuation and reassessment. It highlights the importance of protecting the rights of importers while ensuring that customs authorities act within the bounds of the law. This case is a significant milestone in the evolution of customs law in India and provides valuable insights for importers, legal practitioners, and policymakers.

    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

  • Kotak Mahindra Bank Secures Victory in Gold Import Valuation Dispute at CESTAT Chennai

    Kotak Mahindra Bank Secures Victory in Gold Import Valuation Dispute at CESTAT Chennai

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.01.2026

    Kotak Mahindra Bank Secures Victory in Gold Import Valuation Dispute at CESTAT Chennai

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

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs. ​ This case revolved around the valuation of imported gold bars under consignment sales and the applicability of customs duty on the differential value. ​ The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of customs valuation rules and the concept of “sale” under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a nominated agency for buying and selling gold bars, imported gold bars on a consignment sale basis. ​ The bank declared the value of the gold bars in the Bills of Entry based on the proforma invoice issued by the foreign suppliers. The proforma invoice reflected the price determined by the London Bullion Market Association at the time of import. ​ Customs duty was paid based on this declared value. ​

    However, after the clearance of goods, the final price of the gold bars was mutually agreed upon between the bank and the suppliers, which was higher than the declared invoice value. The department issued a show-cause notice to the bank, demanding differential duty of Rs. ​ 10,19,051/- along with interest, as the remitted amount was higher than the declared invoice value.

    Key Issues in the Case ​

    The tribunal identified three key issues for consideration:

    1. Existence of Sale at the Time of Import: The tribunal examined whether the transaction constituted a “sale” at the time of import or if the sale occurred post-importation. ​
    2. Correctness of Declared Value: The tribunal analyzed whether the value declared in the Bills of Entry represented the correct transaction value as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. ​
    3. Determination of Correct Value: If the declared value was not correct, the tribunal sought to determine the appropriate value for customs duty calculation. ​

    Arguments Presented

    Appellant’s Arguments

    The appellant contended that:

    • The declared value in the Bills of Entry was based on the proforma invoice, which reflected the price of gold bars at the time of import. ​
    • The final price was determined post-importation due to fluctuating gold prices and mutual agreement with the supplier. ​
    • The demand for differential duty was based on provisions not mentioned in the show-cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. ​
    • The remittance made post-importation should not be considered part of the transaction value, as it does not represent the price paid or payable at the time of import. ​
    • The valuation should be based on the price of similar goods as per Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, which aligns with the London Bullion Market Association price. ​

    Respondent’s Arguments ​

    The Revenue argued that:

    • The higher amount remitted to the supplier post-importation should be considered the correct transaction value under Rule 3(1) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. ​
    • The demand for differential duty was justified as the declared value did not represent the actual transaction value. ​

    Tribunal’s Observations and Findings

    The tribunal made the following key observations:

    1. No Sale at the Time of Import: Referring to the FAQs published by the Directorate General of Valuation (DGOV), the tribunal noted that goods imported on consignment sale basis do not constitute a “sale” at the time of importation. ​ The event of sale occurred only after the import, when the final price was mutually agreed upon. ​
    2. Declared Value as Correct Transaction Value: The tribunal held that the declared value in the Bills of Entry, based on the London Bullion Market Association price at the time of import, represented the correct transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The remittance made post-importation could not be considered part of the transaction value. ​
    3. Sequential Application of Valuation Rules: The tribunal emphasized that in cases of consignment sales, the transaction value method under Rule 3 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, is not applicable. Instead, the valuation should proceed sequentially from Rule 4 to Rule 9. ​ In this case, the declared value aligned with Rule 5, which considers the value of similar goods. ​
    4. Refund in Other Cases: The tribunal clarified that in cases where the remitted amount post-importation is lower than the declared value, the appellant is entitled to claim a refund, as the declared value remains the correct transaction value. ​

    Final Decision

    The tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal filed by M/s. ​ Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. ​ It held that the declared value in the Bills of Entry was the correct transaction value for customs valuation purposes, and the demand for differential duty was not justified. ​ The tribunal also granted consequential reliefs to the appellant as per the law. ​

    Key Takeaways

    1. Definition of Sale: The judgment clarifies that goods imported on consignment sale basis do not constitute a “sale” at the time of importation. ​ The event of sale occurs only when the final price is agreed upon post-importation. ​
    2. Customs Valuation Rules: In cases where the transaction does not meet the criteria of a sale at the time of import, the customs valuation must proceed sequentially from Rule 4 to Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. ​
    3. Declared Value: The value declared in the Bills of Entry, based on the prevailing market price at the time of import, is considered the correct transaction value for customs duty purposes. ​
    4. Uniform Approach: The tribunal emphasized the need for a consistent approach in determining customs valuation, whether the remitted amount post-importation is higher or lower than the declared value.

    Conclusion

    This case serves as a landmark judgment in clarifying the application of customs valuation rules in consignment sales. ​ It highlights the importance of adhering to the sequential application of valuation methods and the need for consistency in determining transaction values. ​ Importers and customs authorities alike can benefit from the insights provided in this judgment to ensure compliance with the Customs Act, 1962, and Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

    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 Mumbai Overturns Classification and Valuation Orders in Adulterated Diesel Dispute

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Classification and Valuation Orders in Adulterated Diesel Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.12.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Classification and Valuation Orders in Adulterated Diesel Dispute

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

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a significant judgment on December 19, 2025, addressing eight identical appeals concerning the classification and valuation of imported goods. The case revolved around the importation of goods declared as “penetrating oil-60” by eight appellants, which the Customs Department reclassified as “adulterated diesel” under Chapter Heading (CTH) 2710 1990, leading to enhanced valuation, penalties, and confiscation orders. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellants, including companies such as M/s Auto Stores, Dashmesh Trade Impex, Amarjeet Enterprises, and others, had imported consignments of “penetrating oil-60 (for industrial use)” under CTH 3403 9900, which covers industrial lubricating preparations. ​ However, based on intelligence gathered by the R&I Division of Customs, Mumbai, the Respondent-Department alleged that the goods were “adulterated diesel” and reclassified them under CTH 2710 1990, which pertains to petroleum oils containing more than 70% petroleum oil or oils obtained from bituminous minerals. ​

    The Respondent-Department argued that the test reports indicated the presence of more than 70% petroleum hydrocarbons, which led to the conclusion that the goods were adulterated diesel. ​ Consequently, the Department imposed enhanced duties, penalties, and redemption fines, and ordered the confiscation of the goods. ​

    Key Arguments Presented

    During the hearing, the appellants, represented by Advocate, argued that the Department failed to conclusively prove the reclassification of the goods. ​ The test reports confirmed that the goods did not meet the requirements of high-speed diesel as per IS 1460:2025, but did not provide evidence of adulteration. ​ The appellants contended that the burden of proof for reclassification lies with the Department, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in previous rulings. ​

    The appellants also highlighted that the issue of classification had already been settled by the Tribunal in favor of one of the appellants, M/s Ideal Impex, in a similar case involving the same product. ​ The Tribunal had overturned the classification and valuation orders, holding that the goods were correctly classified under CTH 3403 9900. ​

    Furthermore, the appellants argued that the alleged violation of Rule 30 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, was not applicable to them as importers, as the rule pertains to the transportation of petroleum products in bulk by ships or vessels. ​

    Tribunal’s Observations and Final Order ​

    The Tribunal carefully examined the arguments, test reports, and relevant legal provisions, including CTH 3403 and CTH 2710. ​ It noted that the test reports were inconclusive and did not establish the presence of adulterated diesel. ​ The Tribunal also emphasized that the burden of proof for reclassification was not discharged by the Department. ​

    The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the case of M/s Ideal Impex, which had set a judicial precedent for similar cases. ​ It concluded that the imported goods were appropriately classified under CTH 3403 and that the Department’s reclassification and valuation were flawed. ​

    In its final order, the Tribunal allowed all eight appeals, setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, and granting consequential relief to the appellants. ​

    Implications of the Judgment

    This landmark decision by the CESTAT, Mumbai, underscores the importance of adhering to established legal principles in classification disputes. It reiterates that the burden of proof for reclassification lies with the Revenue Department and that inconclusive test reports cannot form the basis for altering the classification and valuation of imported goods. ​

    The judgment also highlights the significance of judicial precedents in ensuring consistency and predictability in legal decisions. ​ By upholding the precedent set in the case of M/s Ideal Impex, the Tribunal has reinforced the principle of fairness and uniformity in adjudicating similar cases. ​ This ruling serves as a reminder to importers and regulatory authorities alike to ensure compliance with legal provisions and to base decisions on concrete evidence. It also provides clarity on the interpretation of tariff headings and the application of rules under the Petroleum Act, 1934, and Petroleum Rules, 2002.

    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

  • CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Allegations of Undervaluation in Silk Imports

    CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Allegations of Undervaluation in Silk Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.12.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Allegations of Undervaluation in Silk Imports

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration against M/s Sino Import and Export Pvt Ltd and its director, in connection with the import of raw silk and tussah silk. The appeals, arising from Order-in-Original No. ​ 109388/2024, were heard and decided by the Hon’ble Members Technical and Judicial. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around allegations that Sino Import and Export Pvt Ltd had misdeclared the origin and undervalued imported raw silk and tussah silk from Uzbekistan, China, and Vietnam between January 2019 and November 2022. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted investigations, including searches and analysis of documents, and issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging that the importer had evaded customs duties by misdeclaring the transaction value and origin of the goods. ​

    The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands of differential duty amounting to Rs. ​ 1,10,21,861, imposed penalties on the importer and its director, and ordered the confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ Aggrieved by the decision, the appellants challenged the order before the CESTAT. ​

    Key Issues in the Case

    The Tribunal examined several critical issues, including:

    1. Rejection of Transaction Value: The department alleged undervaluation based on unsigned invoices and export documents from Uzbekistan Customs, which were not provided to the importer. ​
    2. Non-Compliance with Section 138C: The appellants argued that the documents relied upon by the department were not certified as required under Section 138C of the Customs Act, rendering them inadmissible. ​
    3. Reliance on Statements: The department relied on statements made by Appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act, but the mandated procedure under Section 138B for testing the relevancy of such statements was not followed. ​
    4. Comparison with Other Importers: The department compared the declared transaction values with average unit prices of similar goods imported by other Indian importers, which the appellants contended was not a valid basis for rejecting their declared values. ​

    Key Findings of the Tribunal ​

    After a detailed examination of the evidence and arguments, the Tribunal made the following observations:

    • The department failed to provide authenticated copies of the export documents from Uzbekistan Customs, which were crucial to substantiate the allegations of undervaluation. ​
    • The unsigned invoice relied upon by the department lacked evidentiary value, and the failure to provide certified documents violated the principles of fairness and justice. ​
    • The statements of Appellant were deemed irrelevant as the procedure under Section 138B was not followed, and the department did not allow cross-examination of the deponent. ​
    • The comparison of transaction values with average unit prices of other importers was found to be flawed, as it did not account for factors such as quantity, quality, and negotiation terms. ​

    Tribunal’s Decision

    The Tribunal held that the department failed to prove the allegations of undervaluation with credible evidence. ​ It emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the department to establish undervaluation, which cannot be based on mere suspicion or unsubstantiated documents. ​ The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory requirements under Sections 138B and 138C of the Customs Act. ​

    As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order in its entirety, including the demands for differential duty, penalties, and confiscation of goods. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. ​

    Significance of the Ruling

    This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and evidentiary standards in customs investigations. ​ It reiterates the principle that allegations of undervaluation must be supported by concrete evidence and cannot be based on assumptions or unverified documents. ​ The decision also highlights the need for transparency and fairness in adjudication proceedings, ensuring that importers are given access to all relevant documents and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. ​

    The ruling serves as a reminder to both importers and authorities about the importance of compliance with legal provisions and the need for a fair and just adjudication process. ​ It is a landmark decision that reinforces the principles of natural justice and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. This case is a testament to the importance of robust legal representation and adherence to procedural safeguards in customs disputes. Importers and stakeholders in the trade community can draw valuable lessons from this ruling to ensure compliance and protect their rights.

    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 Delhi Overturns Penalties in Customs Valuation Dispute

    CESTAT Delhi Overturns Penalties in Customs Valuation Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.10.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Overturns Penalties in Customs Valuation Dispute

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a judgment on October 29, 2025, in the case of Appellant vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs. ​ The Tribunal set aside penalties imposed under Sections 112(b)(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, highlighting critical procedural lapses and the importance of adhering to legal safeguards during investigations and adjudication. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant a partner in M/s Chandra Impex, challenged the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD TKD, New Delhi, which imposed penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 112(b)(ii) and Rs. ​ 50 lakhs under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. ​ The case revolved around allegations of undervaluation of imported goods, specifically spray paints, in the 14th consignment imported by M/s Chandra Chemicals, a firm owned by the appellant’s father.

    The department alleged that the appellant had submitted fraudulent commercial invoices to declare lower transaction values, while the actual values were reflected in proforma invoices retrieved from his email account during an investigation. ​ The appellant, however, retracted his statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, claiming coercion and undue pressure during the investigation.

    Key Issues Raised

    The appellant’s counsel argued that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon due to the following reasons:

    1. The statement was retracted immediately, citing coercion and threats. ​
    2. The provisions of Section 138B of the Customs Act, which mandate examination and cross-examination of the person making the statement, were not followed. ​
    3. The proforma invoices retrieved from the appellant’s email were not recorded under a panchnama, nor were they properly substantiated as evidence. ​
    4. The department failed to provide evidence linking the proforma invoices to the alleged undervaluation of goods. ​

    CESTAT’s Observations

    The Tribunal meticulously analyzed the procedural requirements under Sections 108 and 138B of the Customs Act. ​ It emphasized that statements recorded during investigations must be admitted as evidence only after the adjudicating authority examines the person making the statement and provides an opportunity for cross-examination. ​ Failure to follow this mandatory procedure renders such statements inadmissible. ​

    The Tribunal also noted:

    • The appellant’s retraction of his statement highlighted the possibility of coercion during the investigation. ​
    • The proforma invoices relied upon by the department were not properly substantiated or linked to the alleged undervaluation. ​
    • The earlier 13 consignments had been cleared after physical examination by customs authorities, and no evidence was presented to prove undervaluation in those cases. ​

    Final Decision

    The Tribunal concluded that the charge of undervaluation could not be substantiated, and the transaction value declared in the commercial invoices could not be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. ​ Consequently, the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and the imposition of penalties under Sections 112(b)(ii) and 114AA were deemed unsustainable.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Adherence to Legal Safeguards: The judgment underscores the importance of following mandatory procedures under Sections 108 and 138B of the Customs Act to ensure fairness and justice during investigations and adjudication. ​
    2. Protection Against Coercion: The Tribunal highlighted the need to safeguard individuals from coercion or undue pressure during investigations, ensuring that statements are voluntary and admissible. ​
    3. Evidence-Based Adjudication: Reliance on unsubstantiated evidence, such as proforma invoices, without proper linkage or corroboration, cannot form the basis for penalties or confiscation.

    Conclusion

    This landmark decision by CESTAT serves as a reminder of the critical role of procedural compliance in customs investigations and adjudication. It reinforces the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done, ensuring that individuals are not penalized based on assumptions or procedural lapses. ​ The ruling is a significant step toward upholding transparency and fairness in customs law enforcement.

    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

  • CESTAT Chandigarh Set Aside Customs Duty Demand in PVC Tape Valuation Case

    CESTAT Chandigarh Set Aside Customs Duty Demand in PVC Tape Valuation Case

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.07.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh Set Aside Customs Duty Demand in PVC Tape Valuation Case

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Ad Adhesive Industries & Others vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi-IV. This decision, pronounced on July 24, 2025, has far-reaching implications for customs valuation and procedural adherence in adjudication proceedings.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around allegations of undervaluation of adhesive tapes imported by M/s Ad Adhesive Industries and M/s Sunbeam Industries. ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) claimed that the appellants had misdeclared the value of imported goods, evading customs duty. ​ The investigation relied heavily on statements from employees and a single bill of entry where the transaction value was enhanced. Based on these findings, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV, confirmed the demands, imposed penalties, and ordered the encashment of bank guarantees.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Chandigarh

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Valuation Over Silk Fabric Imports

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Valuation Over Silk Fabric Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Valuation Over Silk Fabric Imports

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, allowed the appeal of M/s. Elegant International by setting aside a customs demand raised by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner had earlier rejected the declared transaction value of imported Chinese silk fabrics under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, alleging under-invoicing. However, the Tribunal found the basis of the valuation untenable due to lack of direct evidence against the appellant.

    Case Background

    M/s. Elegant International had imported silk fabrics from Zhejiang Cathaya International, China, between 2003 and 2005 via 37 Bills of Entry. The Commissioner, Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi, passed an order dated 6 February 2009 alleging that the declared transaction values were suppressed. The valuation was rejected under Rule 10A, and the value was reassessed under Rule 5 of the 1988 Valuation Rules. A differential customs duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, followed.

    The entire case against the appellant rested on evidence recovered during DRI investigations against other importers (M/s. Purnima Enterprises, M/s. Om Fabrics, and M/s. Vedant Enterprises), where duplicate invoices were allegedly used to understate import value.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai- Valuation and Weight Allegations Not Sustainable

    CESTAT Chennai- Valuation and Weight Allegations Not Sustainable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.05.2025

    CESTAT Chennai- Valuation and Weight Allegations Not Sustainable

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench ruled in favor of M/s. Tech Zone Global Trading Company and several other importers, setting aside the confiscation, duty demands, and penalties imposed for allegedly misdeclaring the origin and value of imported PVC flex banners to evade anti-dumping duty (ADD).

    Case Background:

    • The importers were accused of routing Chinese-origin PVC flex banners through Malaysia, misusing Country of Origin (COO) certificates to claim AIFTA benefits and evade ADD.
    • The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated action based on the allegation that importers, including Tech Zone, misdeclared the country of origin and underreported quantity and value.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Chennai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Bangalore held that there was no justification to reject the transaction value

    CESTAT Bangalore held that there was no justification to reject the transaction value

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.05.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore held that there was no justification to reject the transaction value

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Regional Bench Bangalore, has allowed the appeal filed by M/s K V Joshy & C K Paul against the re-determined customs valuation of imported refillable plastic gas lighters from China. In Final Order No. 20531/2025 dated 30 April 2025, the Tribunal ruled that the rejection of transaction value was unjustified due to lack of comparable imports and procedural lapses.

    Case Background:

    • The appellants imported refillable plastic gas lighters under Bill of Entry No. 8950081 dated 17.04.2015.
    • Customs authorities alleged undervaluation based on email communications and proforma invoices showing higher values for different branded products.
    • The Adjudicating Authority re-determined the value and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) later upheld the reassessment but set aside penalty under Section 114AA.
    • The matter reached CESTAT challenging the basis for rejecting declared values.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com