Tag: #WhatsappChannel

  • CESTAT Bangalore Ruled on Proper Classification of Scientific Instruments under Customs Tariff Act

    CESTAT Bangalore Ruled on Proper Classification of Scientific Instruments under Customs Tariff Act

    Date: 01.05.2026

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Bangalore recently adjudicated a significant case involving ITC Limited and the classification of scientific instruments imported for research and development. The dispute centered on whether these instruments should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9032 or 9027, impacting the applicable duties and compliance requirements.

    Background of the Case

    ITC Limited, a DSIR-certified research facility, imported a set of scientific instruments including a Monodisperse Aerosol Generator, Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, Electrical Neutralizer, and Aerosol Diluter. These instruments are integral to the physical and chemical analysis of aerosols, a process essential for ITC’s R&D activities. The company declared the goods under CTH 9027, which covers instruments for physical or chemical analysis, and paid the corresponding duties.

    Customs Department’s Allegation

    The Customs Department alleged mis-declaration, reclassifying the goods under CTH 9032, which pertains to instruments for measuring or controlling variables like temperature, pressure, or humidity. This reclassification led to a demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The department also invoked the extended period of limitation, claiming suppression or willful misstatement by ITC Limited.

    ITC Limited’s Defense

    ITC Limited argued that:

    1. The imported instruments function together as a system for physical and chemical analysis, not for measurement or control as defined under CTH 9032.
    2. The goods were appropriately described and classified in the Bill of Entry, matching the supplier’s commercial invoice and HS code.
    3. The issue was interpretational, not a case of suppression or willful misstatement.
    4. The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked, as there was no evidence of evasion or concealment.

    Legal Provisions and Precedents

    • Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act: CTH 9027 covers instruments for physical or chemical analysis, while CTH 9032 is for instruments measuring or controlling specific variables.
    • Chapter Note 3 and Section XVI Note 4: When a combination of machines contributes to a clearly defined function, classification should follow the function.
    • Supreme Court Precedents: Multiple judgments, including Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, emphasized that extended limitation requires proof of willful misstatement or suppression.

    Tribunal’s Findings

    The Tribunal found that:

    1. The aerosol generator and related instruments are used for generating and analyzing aerosols, not for measurement or control as per CTH 9032.
    2. The system does not operate in isolation and lacks mechanisms to measure or control parameters independently.
    3. The classification under CTH 9027 is appropriate, and the department’s invocation of extended limitation was unsustainable.
    4. The penalty and demand raised by the department were set aside.

    Outcome

    The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. ITC Limited received consequential relief, affirming the correct classification under CTH 90278090.

    Key Takeaways for Importers

    1. Accurate Classification: Ensure goods are classified based on their actual function and use, supported by documentation.
    2. Documentation: Maintain clear records, including commercial invoices and technical descriptions, to support classification.
    3. Legal Awareness: Understand relevant tariff headings and legal notes to avoid disputes.
    4. Responding to Allegations: In case of misclassification allegations, demonstrate bona fide intent and absence of suppression.

    This case highlights the importance of precise classification and robust documentation in customs compliance for scientific instruments.

    Handy Download:

  • CAAR Mumbai Rules Carbon Pultruded Plates under HSN 68151900 eligible for Concessional Duty as WOEG Blade Parts

    CAAR Mumbai Rules Carbon Pultruded Plates under HSN 68151900 eligible for Concessional Duty as WOEG Blade Parts

    Dated: 30.01.2026

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    Applicant: Suzlon Energy Limited ​

    Subject Goods: Carbon Pultruded Plates ​

    Issue: Determination of the applicable Basic Customs Duty (BCD) rate for the import of Carbon Pultruded Plates under Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Customs (as amended by Notification No. ​ 05/2025-Customs). ​

    Suzlon Energy Limited sought an advance ruling on whether Carbon Pultruded Plates, used as spar caps in rotor blades of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG), qualify for concessional BCD under Sr. No. 405(4) or Sr. No. ​ 405(5) of the exemption notification. ​

    The applicant argued that the plates, made from carbon fibers, are integral to the manufacturing of rotor blades and should qualify for concessional BCD either as “raw materials” under Sr. No. ​ 405(5) or as “parts” under Sr. No. 405(4). ​

    The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) examined the classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 68151900 and the scope of the exemption notification. ​

    1. Customs Act, 1962
      • Section 28H(1): Application for advance ruling.
      • Section 28-I(2): Matters related to classification of goods and applicability of exemption notifications. ​
    2. Customs Tariff Act, 1975
      • Chapter Heading 68151900: Classification of Carbon Pultruded Plates as “Other articles of carbon fibers.” ​
    3. Notification No. 50/2017-Customs (as amended by Notification No. 05/2025-Customs)
      • Sr. No. ​ 405(5): Concessional BCD for “Balsa Wood, Carbon Fibre for the wind operated electricity generator blades.” ​
      • Sr. No. ​ 405(4): Concessional BCD for “Parts for the manufacture or the maintenance of blades for rotor of wind operated electricity generators.” ​
    1. Collector of Central Excise v. Mahendra Engineering Works [1993 (67) ELT 134 (Tribunal)]
      • Established the principle that “a part of a part is a part of the whole,” meaning sub-components of a machine are categorized as components of the machine. ​
    2. Collector of Central Excise v. MP Oil Ltd [1990 (46) ELT 68 (Tribunal)]
      • Reaffirmed the principle that sub-components are integral parts of the whole machine. ​
    3. CCE v. Insulation Electrical [2008 (224) ELT 512 (SC)]
      • Defined “parts” as essential components of the whole without which the whole cannot function. ​
    4. Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE [1989 (43) ELT 178 (SC)]
      • Distinguished machine-specific components as “parts” rather than generic raw materials. ​
    1. Classification: Carbon Pultruded Plates are classified under CTH 68151900 as “Other articles of carbon fibers” with a standard BCD rate of 10%. ​
    2. Eligibility under Sr. No. 405(5): The plates are not eligible for concessional BCD under Sr. No. ​ 405(5) as this entry covers only raw carbon fibers or balsa wood, not articles of carbon fibers. ​
    3. Eligibility under Sr. No. 405(4): The plates qualify as “parts for the manufacture or maintenance of blades for rotor of wind operated electricity generators” and are eligible for concessional BCD at 5%. ​

    The primary legal framework for the classification of goods is derived from the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI).

    • Classification is the process of identifying the correct tariff heading or sub-heading for goods, which determines duty liability and eligibility for exemptions.
    • The GRI provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes.
    1. Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Provides tariff structure and GRI.
    2. Customs Act, 1962 – Governs levy, valuation, and import compliance once classification is determined.
    3. GST framework (where relevant) – Uses HSN for tax rate determination.

    India follows the internationally harmonized system designed by the World Customs Organization, used by over 200 countries for uniform classification.

    (A) Primacy of Headings and Notes

    The Supreme Court-recognized rule is that classification must be based on:

    • Terms of the heading
    • Relevant Section Notes
    • Chapter Notes

    These notes are binding and can override headings when necessary.

    (B) Sequential Application of GRI

    • Titles of sections or chapters are only for reference.
    • Legal determination flows from headings and notes first.

    (C) Essential Character Rule

    Incomplete or unassembled goods are classified as finished goods if they possess the “essential character.”

    (D) Competing Headings → Rule 3

    Where goods are prima facie classifiable under multiple headings, GRI Rule 3 determines the correct classification.

    (E) “Most Akin” Test

    The Supreme Court has clarified that classification should identify the category most akin to the imported goods, not merely rely on probability.

    In Collector of Central Excise v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., 1995 (77) ELT 23 (SC), the Court emphasized that tariff interpretation rules govern classification and that Section/Chapter Notes carry statutory force.

    Further, the Supreme Court reiterated that classification is crucial because it determines the legal and financial treatment of goods, including duty implications.

    4. Special Context: HSN 68151900

    • HSN 6815 covers “articles of stone or other mineral substances (including carbon fibres)… not elsewhere specified.”
    • Sub-heading 68151900 specifically refers to other non-electrical articles of graphite or carbon.


    Because Heading 6815 is a residuary-style entry (“not elsewhere specified or included”), courts and authorities typically apply the following logic:

    1. Examine whether the product fits a more specific heading first (GRI Rule 1 & 3).
    2. If not, classification may fall under the residual category.
    3. Apply the most akin test where technical similarity is disputed.

    5. Applied Legal Test for Goods under 68151900

    When deciding whether goods belong under 68151900, authorities generally evaluate:

    • Material composition (graphite/carbon vs. other minerals)
    • Functional use (non-electrical vs. electrical components)
    • Manufacturing characteristics
    • Trade understanding / commercial identity

    Only after excluding competing headings should the residuary entry be invoked — a well-settled interpretative approach under tariff law.

    6. Consolidated Legal Position

    Classification under Indian customs law is determined primarily by the statutory language of headings read with Section and Chapter Notes, applied through the General Rules for Interpretation; where ambiguity persists, courts adopt the essential character and “most akin” tests before resorting to residuary entries such as HSN 68151900.

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

  • CESTAT New Delhi- The reassessment was held to be invalid and legally unsustainable

    CESTAT New Delhi- The reassessment was held to be invalid and legally unsustainable

    Date: 03.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, ruled in favour of M/s Trina Steelcarb Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a reassessment order that enhanced the assessable value of imported goods without issuing a speaking order as mandated under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    1. Violation of Section 17(5): The Tribunal found that the assessing officer failed to issue a speaking order despite the reassessment being contrary to the importer’s declared self-assessment and without written acceptance. Section 17(5) mandates issuance of a speaking order within 15 days in such cases.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT New Delhi- SVB Loading Rejected as Legally Unsustainable

    CESTAT New Delhi- SVB Loading Rejected as Legally Unsustainable

    Date: 02.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowed the appeal of M/s Rays Engineering Works against the re-assessment of customs duty on imported goods. The Tribunal held that the enhancement of assessable value based on 13% “SVB loading” was illegal and violative of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    • The appellant declared the value of goods at US$ 1.25/kg for slew gear and US$ 0.67/kg for bucket tooth.
    • The Assessing Officer enhanced the declared value by 13% citing SVB loading, without issuing a speaking order under Section 17(5).
    • Appellant paid the enhanced duty but did not provide written acceptance of the reassessment.

    Handy Download:

  • 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

    Date: 02.05.2025

    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.

    • 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.

    Handy Download:

  • Supreme Court Constitution Bench Affirms Limited Court Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on Severability Doctrine

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Affirms Limited Court Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on Severability Doctrine

    Date: 01.05.2025

    In a landmark Constitution Bench judgment dated 30 April 2025 (Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., 2025 INSC 605), the Supreme Court of India has decisively held that Indian courts possess a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

    The court affirmed that while Section 34 does not explicitly provide for modification, courts can:

    • Modify an award if the invalid portion is severable from the valid portion.
    • Correct clerical, typographical, or computational errors.
    • Adjust post-award interest, as prescribed under Section 31(7)(b).
    • Exercise modification under Article 142 of the Constitution in rare cases to do complete justice.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Mumbai Partially Relieves Appellants in Cigarette Smuggling Case: Penalty Under Section 112(a) Quashed, Retained Under Section 112(b)

    CESTAT Mumbai Partially Relieves Appellants in Cigarette Smuggling Case: Penalty Under Section 112(a) Quashed, Retained Under Section 112(b)

    Date: 01.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench, delivered a nuanced verdict in Customs Appeal Nos. 87171 and 87172 of 2019 involving allegations of illegal import and distribution of foreign-origin cigarettes in violation of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COPTA), 2003.

    • The Air Intelligence Unit (AIU), CSI Airport Customs, intercepted a consignment containing 3 lakh cigarette sticks branded as “New Light Cigarettes WIN” valued at ₹15 lakhs.
    • The consignment, imported from Myanmar via the North-East, did not comply with packaging norms under COPTA and lacked valid import documents.
    • Investigation revealed a network involving multiple individuals, including Appellant (owner of M/s Megha Collection) and his employee Appellant, who were implicated in receiving and further distributing such consignments.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Kolkata Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    CESTAT Kolkata Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    Date: 01.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, set aside a massive ₹70 crore customs duty demand raised against M/s Kalyani Solvent Pvt. Ltd. for importing crude rice bran oil. The tribunal held that the company was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (as amended), even though the acid content of the imported oil exceeded 20%.

    M/s Kalyani Solvent Pvt. Ltd., a leading edible oil processor supplying to brands like Patanjali, had imported 104 consignments of crude rice bran oil between October 2010 and February 2012 under CTH 1515 9091, claiming duty exemption. Customs authorities later issued a Show Cause Notice in 2013 alleging the imports were ineligible for exemption due to high acid content, seeking recovery of ₹70 crore.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Bangalore- Quick Lime Imports by JSW Steel Classifiable Under Chapter 25

    CESTAT Bangalore- Quick Lime Imports by JSW Steel Classifiable Under Chapter 25

    Date: 01.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, allowed the appeal of M/s JSW Steel Limited, Salem, quashing the differential customs duty demand of over Rs. 75 lakh and ruling that “Quick Lime” is correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2522 10 00.

    • JSW Steel imported “Quick Lime Powder” under 8 Bills of Entry between September and November 2015.
    • The goods were initially assessed provisionally under CTH 2522 1000, with standard duty payments.
    • Based on test results indicating 92.2% purity of calcium oxide, Revenue reclassified the product under CTH 2825 9090 (for pure calcium oxide) and raised a demand of Rs. 75,99,475 plus interest.

    Handy Download:

  • Bill of Lading & Charter Party contracts- New York Convention on Arbitration implemented in India

    Bill of Lading & Charter Party contracts- New York Convention on Arbitration implemented in India

    Date: 30.04.2025

    Ref: ART-SM-21042025-001

    Topic: Bill of Lading and Charter Party

    Case Law

    The Owners & Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Baltic Confidence & anr. Vs State of Trading Corportion of India Ltd. & anr.

    In Supreme Court of India, under Civil Appeal Decided On: 20.08.2001, wherein Appellants were  The Owners & Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Baltic Confidence & anr. and Respondents were State of Trading Corportion of India Ltd. & anr. wherein the subject matter of the case is of Contract and Arbitration. The said case referred Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 45; Arbitration Act, 1950 – Section 33; Arbitration (Amendment)Act, 1979

    Handy Download: