“Indirect Tax I Customs I Arbitration I Advisory I Central Licensing I Litigation support”
Dated: 24.12.2024
Compilation of Decided Customs Cases-Pro Industry
Background & Introduction:
Indirect taxes and customs duties are pivotal in shaping global trade and fiscal policies. This compendium serves as an essential resource for understanding the complexities and nuances of customs law. Through detailed analyses of landmark judgements, this book offers invaluable insights into legal interpretations and their practical applications.
The law relating to customs duties was first enacted as far back as 1878. This, however, was confined only to the sea Customs. The sea Customs Act was followed by a Land Customs Act in 1924 and when goods began to exported and imported by air, rules were framed under the Indian Aircraft Act for administration of Air Customs with the rapid industrialization of the country and diversification of trade, procedures relating to levy of customs duty and Customs Administration had undergone vast changes. These changes necessitated a series of amendments to the sea Customs Act over many years. When the sea Customs Act was over laid with amendments a need was felt to consolidate the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, Land Customs Act and rules relating to Air Customs into one comprehensive legislation. This was done by enacting the Customs Act, 1962, which consolidated and amended the law relating to Customs.
The Customs Administration is not confined to the enforcement of the provisions relating to the Customs Act only. True, the basic function of Customs Administration is the collection of revenue but since that administration is in a position to control the gateways of a country the administration has been entruted with other related functions, such as, enforcement of the law relating to Import and Export Control as well as other allied Acts.
Thus, both Customs Law and Customs Administration have grown in importance to the trading public, to the professional lawyers and to all the officers connected not only with Customs Administration but with those of various associated fields of administration, such as foreign trade and licensing of imports and exports. The need for a fairly comprehensive commentry on the Customs Law cannot therefore be overemphasized and his book is an attempt to fulfil that need.
Closely allied to the Customs Act is the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Exchange Control is an important mechanism of ensuring stability in an economy and a knowledge of the provisions of the Exchange Control Act is essential for everyone involved in foreign exchange transactions. In this book, having regard to the closely allied nature of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Act and the Customs Act, a commentary on the Foreign Exchange Act has also been included which it is hoped will be of considerable help to all concerned.
Besides these two enactments, allied Acts which are necessary for the administration of Customs or Foreign Exchange have also been given in the Appendix. An attempt of enhance the value of the book by including all the forms necessary for complying with the requirements under the two Acts has also been made.
The authors hope that this Article/Publication will be of help and assistance to those interested in Customs Administration and Customs Law. Each case study is presented/listed below with respective short summary, offering readers a comprehensive view of the issues at hand and the judicial reasoning behind the decisions.
Additionally, this Article/Publication addresses recent developments and emerging trends in the realm of indirect taxes and customs. By highlighting new types of disputes and legislative changes, it equips practitioners, scholars, and students with the knowledge needed to navigate this evolving field. Whether you are a legal professional seeking detailed case law analysis or a student aiming to grasp the fundamentals of customs duties, this short Article/Publication is designed to be a valuable resource.
It is our hope that this compilation will serve as a reliable guide, providing clarity and insight into the intricate world of indirect tax customs. Thank you for embarking on this journey through the complexities of indirect tax customs. We welcome your feedback and look forward to supporting your continued learning and success.
| S No | Tribunal/Court | Number of Cases Considered |
| 1 | CESTAT Decided Matters | 60 |
| 2 | Supreme Court Decided Matters | 12 |
| 3 | High Court Decided Cases | 2 |
CESTAT DECIDED CASE LIST WITH DOWNLOAD LINK:
| S.No | Issue Related To | Matter | Parties | Case Summary | View Order Link |
| 1 | Classification | This case involves seven appeals filed by various companies, including M/s Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. against the orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. | Appeal by M/s Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, classifying the goods under CTH 85177090 and setting aside the demands and penalties imposed by the Principal Commissioner. | Case-No-1 |
| 2 | Classification | M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. successfully appealed against the reclassification of mobile phone parts by the Commissioner. | Appeal by M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal ruled that the parts were correctly classified under CTH 85177090, setting aside the reclassification and associated penalties. | Case-No-2 |
| 3 | Classification | M/s Ceramic Tableware Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the rejection of their request to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to a clerical error in the HSN code. | Appeal by M/s Ceramic Tableware Pvt. Ltd.Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Department to amend the Bill of Entries, as the error was deemed a bona fide mistake and the differential duty had been paid. | Case-No-3 |
| 4 | Classification | The case concerns M/s. Welkin Foods’ appeal against the Customs Department’s classification of their imported aluminium shelving for mushroom growing. | Appeal by M/s. Welkin Foods Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, recognizing the goods as agricultural machinery and allowing the appeal. | Case-No-4 |
| 5 | Classification | This case involves M/s Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd. challenging the classification and confiscation of their imported goods, “Bulk Reishi Gano Powder” and “Bulk Ganocelium Powder.” | Appeal by M/s Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd. Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT re-classified these goods as food preparations under CTH 21069099 instead of Ayurvedic medicaments, and set aside penalties and confiscation orders, remanding the case for recalculating the duty for the normal period. | Case-No-5 |
| 6 | Classification | Polaris India Private Limited challenged the reclassification of their imported vehicles by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, which resulted in a significant customs duty demand and penalties. | Appeal by Polaris India Private Limited Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled in favor of Polaris India, confirming the correct classification under CTH 8704 and CTH 8709, and set aside the previous order. | Case-No-6 |
| 7 | Classification | M/s Benetton India Private Limited successfully appealed against a customs order that reclassified their imported jackets and imposed a differential duty and penalty. | Appeal by M/s Benetton India Private Limited Against Additional Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal ruled that the misclassification was a bonafide mistake, not willful suppression, and set aside the previous order. | Case-No-7 |
| 8 | Classification | M/s. Ingram Micro Indian Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the reclassification of their imported Executive IP Phones under CTH 8517 69 90 by customs authorities, which denied them a 0% duty benefit. | Appeal by M/S Ingram Micro Indian Pvt. Ltd. Against Deputy Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, classifying the goods under CTH 8517 18 10, and set aside the previous order. | Case-No-8 |
| 9 | Classifiaction | In this case, Vodafone Idea Limited appealed against the classification of imported Hybrid/Pure Matrix Cards and Small Form Factor Pluggable (SFP) transceivers by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. | Appeal by Vodafone Idea Limited Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled in favor of Vodafone Idea, reclassifying the goods as parts under CTI 8517 70 10 and CTI 8517 70 90, respectively, and set aside the previous order. | Case-No-9 |
| 10 | Classification | The case involves M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd challenging the classification of imported IC-Codecs under CTI 8517 62 90 by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. | Appeal by M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd Against Commissioner of Customs. | The tribunal ruled in favor of Samsung, reclassifying the goods under CTI 8542 39 00 and dismissing the department’s appeal for confiscation and penalty. | Case-No-10 |
| 11 | Classification | The case concerns the classification of imported lotion dispenser pumps by M/s. Aptar Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. | Appeal by Principal Commissioner of Customs Against M/s. Aptar Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. | The Tribunal ruled that the correct classification is under CTH 84248990, as the pumps are designed for dispersing lotion, dismissing the department’s appeal for classification under CTH 84132000. | Case-No-11 |
| 12 | Seized Goods | The case involves Tasha Gold Pvt Ltd, which appealed against the Principal Commissioner of Customs, for rejecting the provisional release of imported gold dore bars. | Appeal by TASHA GOLD PVT LTD Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The tribunal allowed the provisional release of 26 bars, subject to conditions, while retaining one bar as security until final adjudication. | Case-No-12 |
| 13 | Seized Goods | The case involves an appeal by appellant against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act. | Appeal by appellant Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT found insufficient evidence to prove the gold was smuggled and set aside the penalty, allowing the appeal. | Case-No-13 |
| 14 | Seized Goods | Appellant was detained at New Delhi airport with 151 gold coins, suspected of smuggling. | Appeal by appellant Against Commissioner of Customs. | The tribunal ruled in his favor, confirming the coins were of Indian origin from the British era and ordered their return. | Case-No-14 |
| 15 | Seized Goods | Rudras Overseas filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Indore, regarding the provisional release of seized goods. | Rudras Overseas Against Commissioner of Customs Which was Upheld by CESTAT. | The tribunal set aside the order and directed the Commissioner to issue a reasoned decision within a week, staying the disposal of the goods for eight weeks. | Case-No-15 |
| 16 | Seized Goods | The case involves the seizure of 59 gold bars from appellant by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). | Appeal by Shri appellant Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Customs Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding they had sufficiently proven the licit acquisition of the gold, and ordered the return of the seized gold and vehicle. | Case-No-16 |
| 17 | Seized Goods | The case involves three jewellery businesses accused of smuggling foreign-origin gold, which they claimed was legally acquired and sent for job work. | Appeal by M/s DI GOLD DESIGNER JEWELLERY Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal set aside the Customs Department’s order, citing procedural lapses and insufficient evidence of smuggling, and allowed the appeals. | Case-No-17 |
| 18 | Seized Goods | M/s. Veera Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, Mr. Vaibhav Jain, were accused of misdeclaring and undervaluing imported aromatic chemicals. | Appeal by M/s. Veera Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellants, finding no evidence of misdeclaration or intent to evade duty, and set aside the penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. | Case-No-18 |
| 19 | Seized Goods | M/s. The Craft Harvest’s export of 59 Pashmina shawls was challenged when 6 shawls were suspected to contain prohibited Tibetan antelope hair. | Appeal by M/s. The Craft Harvest Against Commissioner of Customs. | The tribunal found the testing methods outdated and reports insufficient, leading to the setting aside of the confiscation and penalties, and allowing the appeal. | Case-No-19 |
| 20 | Seized Goods | Appellant’s consignment of Chinese mobile phones was seized by the Customs Department on suspicion of smuggling. | Appeal by appellant Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The tribunal ruled in favor of appellant, finding insufficient evidence of smuggling, and ordered the release of the goods. | Case-No-20 |
| 21 | Seized Goods | The case involves M/s Mahakaal Jewels Pvt. Ltd. appealing against a customs duty and penalty imposed for undeclared rough diamonds found in their consignment of rough emeralds. | Appeal by M/s Mahakaal Jewels Private Limited Against Commissioner of Customs. | The tribunal set aside the penalties, allowing the re-export of the diamonds without fines, citing lack of evidence for deliberate mis-declaration and procedural errors in valuation. | Case-No-21 |
| 22 | Seized Goods | The case involves M/s Raajhans Spices Private Limited, an exporter of readymade garments, appealing against the imposition of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi. | Appeal by M/s Raajhans Spices Private Limited Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, found procedural flaws in the investigation and market survey, setting aside the penalties and allowing the appeal. | Case-No-22 |
| 23 | Seized Goods | This case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had set aside a penalty imposed on respondent. | Appeal by Principal Commissioner of Customs Against respondent. | The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, maintaining the Commissioner (Appeals) order. | Case-No-23 |
| 24 | Seized Goods | Apex International challenged the imposition of redemption fine and penalty for not fulfilling export obligations under an advance authorization scheme. | Appeal by Apex International Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ultimately ruled in favor of Apex International, determining that the import conditions had been regularized, thus nullifying the penalties. | Case-No-24 |
| 25 | Jurisdiction | This case involves appeals against a customs duty demand and penalties imposed on M/s Venus Industries and its partner. | Appeal by appellant Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the show cause notice issued by the Additional Director General of DRI was invalid, as per the Supreme Court’s decision in the Canon India Pvt. Ltd. case. | Case-No-25 |
| 26 | Jurisdiction | This case involves appeals by Toyota Material Handling India Pvt. Ltd. and its Senior against demands and penalties imposed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. | Appeal by Toyota Material Handling India Private Limited Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal found that the Principal Additional Director General, DRI, lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs. | Case-No-26 |
| 27 | Jurisdiction | The case involves M/s Beriwala Impex Pvt. Ltd. appealing against an order by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, which confirmed a demand for differential duty and imposed penalties based on allegations of undervaluation of imported LDPE granules. | Appeal by M/s Beriwala Impex Pvt. Ltd. Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was invalid, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Canon India. | Case-No-27 |
| 28 | Refund Claim | The case involves an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs against M/s Telecare Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. regarding a refund of additional customs duty paid on imported mobile phones. | Appeal by Principal Commissioner of Customs Against M/s Telecare Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. | The CESTAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against M/s Telecare Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., upholding the refund of additional customs duty paid on imported mobile phones. | Case-No-28 |
| 29 | Interest on Refund | The case involves appellant, who appealed against the Commissioner of Customs regarding the entitlement to interest on a refunded amount. | Appeal by appellant Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, ruled in favor of appellant, granting him a 12% p.a. | Case-No-29 |
| 30 | Refund | The case involves M/s Indochem & Polymers appealing against the rejection of their refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. | Appeal by M/s Indochem & Polymers Against Commissioner of Customs. | CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund with interest, as the issue was covered by favorable rulings from the Delhi High Court. | Case-No-30 |
| 31 | Refund | Elan Electronics India’s appeal against the rejection of their refund claim for customs duty. | Appeal by Elan Electronics India Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal ruled that the refund was not time-barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the goods were re-exported and never cleared for home consumption, entitling the appellant to a refund with interest. | Case-No-31 |
| 32 | Refund | M/s R S Enterprises appealed against an enhanced customs duty assessment and sought interest on the refunded differential duty. | Appeal by M/s R S Enterprises Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT granted the interest at 12% per annum, recognizing the payment was made under protest. | Case-No-32 |
| 33 | Refund | The case involves M/s D.D. International Pvt Ltd, which sought a refund of customs duty deposits made during an investigation and appeal regarding the import of machinery using Agri Infrastructure Incentive Scrips. | Appeal by M/s D.D. International Pvt Ltd Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the refund of deposited amounts with 12% interest. | Case-No-33 |
| 34 | Refund | M/s. Star Aerospace Industries appealing against the rejection of a part of their refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) by the Commissioner of Customs. | Appeal by M/s. Star Aerospace Industries Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the refund claim was timely and directed the refund to be processed with interest. | Case-No-34 |
| 35 | Refund | The case involves appellant’s appeal for a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. The initial refund claims were rejected as time-barred by the Commissioner of Customs. | Appeal by appellant Against Commissioner of Customs. | CESTAT allowed the appellant’s appeal for a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) with 12% interest within 60 days. | Case-No-35 |
| 36 | Refund | M/s. S.K. Rasayan Udyog Pvt. Limited appealing against the rejection of their refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. | Appeal by M/s. S.K. Rasayan Udyog Pvt. Limited Against Commissioner of Customs. | CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund along with interest. | Case-No-36 |
| 37 | Refund | M/s Indochem & Polymers appealing against the rejection of their refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported goods. | Appeal by M/s Indochem & Polymers Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund with interest, as the issue was covered by favorable rulings from the Delhi High Court. | Case-No-37 |
| 38 | Refund | M/s FJM Cylinders Pvt Ltd appealing against the rejection of their refund claim for Anti Dumping Duty paid on seamless steel tubes imported by Neel Metal Products Ltd. | Appeal by M/s FJM Cylinders Pvt Ltd Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal ruling that they were entitled to the refund under Section 27(1)(b) of the Act and ordering the disbursement of Rs. 40,21,173/- along with interest. | Case-No-38 |
| 39 | Refund | M/s. Sri Sai Imports contesting the rejection of their refund claim for an amount paid during an investigation into alleged undervaluation of imported goods. | Appeal by M/s. Sri Sai Imports Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing their refund claim of the amount paid during the investigation stage, deeming it as a deposit made under protest and thus not subject to limitation. | Case-No-39 |
| 40 | Refund | Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. appealing against the rejection of their refund claims for Additional Duty of Customs paid on imported motorcycles. | Appeal by Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. Against Commissioner of Customs. | CESTAT ultimately ruled in favor of Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd., setting aside the rejection orders and allowing the refund claims. | Case-No-40 |
| 41 | Exemptions | M/s. Mann Tourist Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. successfully appealed against the confiscation of their imported Mercedes Benz vehicles by the Customs Department. | Appeal by M/s. Mann Tourist Transport Against Commissioner of Customs. | CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the vehicles’ registration and certification by Delhi authorities amounted to substantive compliance with the import policy, and ordered the release of the confiscated vehicles. | Case-No-41 |
| 42 | Exemption | M/s. Yadav Agro Industries challenged a customs duty demand for failing to submit the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) within the stipulated time under the EPCG Scheme. | Appeal by M/s. Yadav Agro Industries Against Commissioner of Customs. | The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, noting that the show cause notice was issued prematurely and the delay in obtaining the EODC was due to the DGFT, not the appellant. | Case-No-42 |
| 43 | Exemption | The case involves the Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, and M/s. Micromax Informatics Limited regarding the refund of Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid on imported mobile handsets. | Appeal by Principal Commissioner of Customs Against M/s. Micromax Informatics Limited. | The tribunal upheld the decision to refund the amount to Micromax, rejecting the department’s claim that the burden of duty was passed on to customers, and dismissed the department’s appeals. | Case-No-43 |
| 44 | Exemption | The case involves the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi, appealing against an order that allowed M/s. Go IP Global Services Pvt. Ltd. to claim customs duty exemption on imported MIMO products. | Appeal by Principal Commissioner of Customs Against M/s. Go IP Global Services Pvt. Ltd. | The Tribunal upheld the original order, interpreting that the exemption exclusion applies only to products with both MIMO and LTE technologies, thus dismissing the Department’s appeal. | Case-No-44 |
| 45 | Exemption | The case involves a dispute between the Commissioner of Customs and M/s. S.S. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. regarding the refund of Rs.18,68,000/-. | Appeal by Commissioner of Customs Against M/s. S.S. Automotive Pvt.Ltd. | The Tribunal upheld the refund decision, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal and directing the refund with interest. | Case-No-45 |
| 46 | Valuation | The case involves M/s D M Marketing Inc, New Delhi, appealing against an order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, which upheld the rejection of the declared value of imported food supplements by the Deputy Commissioner. | Appeal by M/S D M MARKETING INC Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT found the rejection improper and set aside the order, granting relief to the appellant. | Case-No-46 |
| 47 | Valuation | This case involves M/s Royal Industries, a partnership firm engaged in import, manufacturing, and export of goods, appealing against an order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). | Appeal by M/S Royal Industries Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalties and confiscation, as there was no evidence of malafide intent or collusion. | Case-No-47 |
| 48 | Customs Duty | The case involves M/s LDPE India, which imported four consignments of PVC Resin from China between July 2018 and March 2019. The issue is whether the appellant is liable to pay Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) under serial number 14 or 21 of Notification No. 21/2014-CUS (ADD). | Appeal by M/s LDPE India Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, confirming that the correct duty was paid under the applicable notification, and set aside the previous order. | Case-No-48 |
| 49 | Customs Duty | M/s. Vijex Vyapaar Private Limited successfully appealed against the imposition of anti-dumping duty on their imported ‘Printer Color Toner’ from China. | Appeal by M/s. Vijex Vyapaar Private Limited Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled that the black toner, being part of a color toner, is excluded from the anti-dumping duty as per the relevant notification. | Case-No-49 |
| 50 | Limitation | The case involves Cisco Systems India Private Limited appealing against the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. | Cisco Systems India Private Limited Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruled in favor of Cisco, stating that filing an appeal implies payment under protest, thus exempting the claim from the six-month limitation period, and allowed the refund. | Case-No-50 |
| 51 | Limitation | This case involves M/s Whirlpool of India Limited appealing against an order that denied them the benefit of a DEPB license and imposed customs duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties. | Appeal by M/s WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LIMITED Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT set aside the demand due to the improper invocation of the extended period of limitation, as there was no evidence of collusion or misstatement by Whirlpool. | Case-No-51 |
| 52 | Limitation | The case involves M/s. Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. appealing against the rejection of their refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi. | Appeal by M/s. Artex Textile Privat Limited Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT, following the Delhi High Court’s decision in Thermoking, set aside the rejection, ruling that such a time limit cannot be imposed by a notification. | Case-No-52 |
| 53 | License | This case involves an appeal by M/s. ICS Cargo, a Customs House Agent (CHA), against the revocation of its customs broker license, forfeiture of its security deposit, and imposition of a penalty by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi. | Appeal by M/s. ICS Cargo Against Commissioner of Customs. | The tribunal found the revocation and penalties unjustified, setting aside the order and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. | Case-No-53 |
| 54 | License | The case involves M/s Pushpanjali Logistics, a licensed Customs Broker, appealing against an order by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi, which revoked their Customs Broker Licence, forfeited their security deposit, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000. | Appeal by M/s Pushpanjali Logistics Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT found no violation of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, and set aside the impugned order, granting relief to the appellant. | Case-No-54 |
| 55 | License | This case involves M/s. Jetset Shipping Pvt. Ltd., a Customs Broker (CB), challenging the revocation of their license, forfeiture of their security deposit, and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR). | Appeal by M/s.Jetset Shipping Pvt.Ltd. Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal ruled in their favor, finding no violation of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. | Case-No-55 |
| 56 | License | The case involves M/s Global Links appealing against the revocation of their Customs Broker License and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. | Appeal by Global Links Against Principal Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal found that the show cause notice lacked specific allegations and that the appellant did not violate the cited regulations, leading to the setting aside of the revocation and penalties. | Case-No-56 |
| 57 | License | This case involves appeals by M/s Freight Logistics and the Commissioner of Customs regarding penalties and license revocation related to the mis-declaration of prohibited export goods. | Appeal by M/s Freight Logistics Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal upheld a Rs. 50,000 penalty on M/s Freight Logistics but set aside the forfeiture of their security deposit and dismissed the appeal for license revocation, citing lack of evidence of their involvement in the fraud. | Case-No-57 |
| 58 | License | M/s Perfect Cargo and Logistics filed an appeal to set aside an order dated June 26, 2020, by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General), which revoked their Customs Broker Licence, forfeited a security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000. | Appeal by M/s Perfect Cargo and Logistics Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruling that they had complied with KYC norms and the Commissioner had erred in concluding regulatory violations. The Tribunal reinstated the licence and set aside the penalties imposed. | Case-No-58 |
| 59 | Import | M/s. Indulge Sign and Graphics’ imported LED Module Lights branded as “Samsung” were confiscated by Customs for being counterfeit, violating IPR rules. | Appeal by M/s. Indulge Sign and Graphics Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Tribunal found procedural violations by Customs and lack of valid IPR registration by Samsung, leading to the order being set aside and the goods’ release. | Case-No-59 |
| 60 | Re-Import | This case involves an appeal by Shri Balaji Ceramic Products against the confiscation of re-imported calcined petroleum coke (CPC) and the imposition of penalties by the Commissioner of Customs, Indore. | Appeal by Shri Balaji Ceramic Products Against Commissioner of Customs. | The CESTAT ruling that the re-import was legitimate and within permissible guidelines, thus allowing the appeal and granting consequential benefits. | Case-No-60 |
SUPREME COURT DECIDED CASE LIST WITH DOWNLOAD LINK:
| S.No | Issue Related To | Matter | Parties | Case Summary | View Order Link |
| 1 | Classification | The case involves the correct classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines, specifically ‘All-in-One Integrated Desktop Computers,’ under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. | Appeal by Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Lenovo (India) Pvt. | Case-no-1 |
| 2 | Classification | The case involves the classification of dried pomegranate seeds, known as ‘anardana,’ under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. | Appeal by Commissioner Of Customs Against M/S D.L. STEELS ETC. | The Supreme Court of India ruled that dried pomegranate seeds, known as ‘anardana,’ should be classified under Heading 1209 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as seeds used for sowing, rather than under Heading 0813 as dried fruits, thereby attracting a lower customs duty. | Case-No-2 |
| 3 | Seized Goods | The case involves M/S. BISCO Limited, which imported second-hand steel mill machinery and parts under a Project Import Facility and stored them in a public bonded warehouse within their factory premises. | Appeal by M/S. BISCO LIMITED Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Supreme Court of India partially upheld the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise’s order against M/S. BISCO Limited for unauthorized removal and improper warehousing of imported goods. | Case-No-3 |
| 4 | Refund | The case involves M/S Sun Export Corporation, Bombay, which imported consignments of a premix of vitamin AD-3 (feed grade) and paid countervailing duty on them.The corporation later sought a refund. | Appeal M/s SUN Export Corporation Against Collector of Customs. | The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the corporation, stating that animal feed supplements qualify for the exemption under Notification 234/82 CE. | Case-No-4 |
| 5 | Seized Goods | The case involves the import of alcohol by M/s. Finacord Chemicals (P) Ltd. and others, who were accused of under-invoicing the goods and importing them against invalid licenses. | Appeal by Commissioner of Customs Against M/S. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS. | The Supreme Court upheld CESTAT’s decision, dismissing the appeals by the Revenue Department. | Case-No-5 |
| 6 | Valuation | The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai, appealing against a decision by the Customs, CESTAT that set aside the enhancement of the value of imported goods and penalties imposed on M/s Ganpati Overseas. | Appeal by Commissioner of Customs Against M/s Ganpati overseas. | The Supreme Court of India upheld the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the enhancement of the value of imported goods and penalties imposed on M/s Ganpati Overseas. | Case-No-6 |
| 7 | Valuation | The case involves Wipro Ltd. challenging the constitutional validity of a proviso in Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, which was amended by a notification in 1990. | Appeal by WIPRO LTD. Against Collector of Customs. | The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Wipro Ltd., declaring that the proviso in Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. | Case-No-7 |
| 8 | Exemption | The case involves Fortis Hospital Ltd., which imported medical equipment in 1990 and sought exemption from import duty under a specific notification. | Appeal by Fortis Hospital Pvt Ltd. Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order, but left the door open for the Department to take independent action for duty payment if within the limitation period. | Case-No-8 |
| 9 | Exemption | The case involves M/S. Swastika Enterprises & Anr. (appellants) versus the Commissioner of Customs & Ors. (respondents) and revolves around the interpretation of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme under the Finance (No.2) Act of 1998. | Appeal by M/S. SWASTIKA ENTERPRISES & ANR. Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Supreme Court ruled in favor of M/S. Swastika Enterprises, allowing them to benefit from the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for settling tax arrears, by determining that the endorsement on their Bill of Entry constituted a sufficient notice of demand. | Case-No-9 |
| 10 | Jurisdiction | The case involves the Commissioner of Customs challenging the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. | Appeal by Commissioner of Customs Against respondent. | The appeals by the revenue were dismissed, and the appeals by the importers were allowed. | Case-No-10 |
| 11 | Jurisdiction | Can DRI issue Show Cause Notice (SCN) | Appeal by Canon India Pvt Ltd Against Commissioner Of Customs. | Entire proceeding in the present case initiated by the Additional Director General of the DRI by issuing show cause notices in all the matters before us are invalid without any authority of law and liable to be set-aside and the ensuing demands are also set aside. | Case-No-11 |
| 12 | Jurisdiction & Exemption | Can DRI issue Show Cause Notice (SCN) | Appeal by Canon India Pvt Ltd Against Commissioner of Customs. | The Supreme Court has held that the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) can issue SCN under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act. | Case-No-12 |
HIGH COURT DECIDED CASE LIST WITH DOWNLOAD LINK :
| S.No | Issue Related To | Matter | Parties | Case Summary | View/Download Order Link |
| 1 | Provisional Release of restricted Goods | The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents to assess and permit the clearance of 129 units of second-hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines. | M/s. City Office Equipments, represented by its proprietor, against the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import) and the Joint Commissioner of Customs. | The court directed the respondents to provisionally release the goods upon payment of applicable duties, subject to eventual adjudication. | Case-No-1 |
| 2 | Provisional Release of restricted Goods | In the case of M/S. Black Gold Technologies vs. Union of India, the petitioner, Black Gold Technologies, sought the release of imported goods consisting of 824.900 MT of “Used Rubber Tyre Cut in Two Pieces” valued at USD 24,747. | M/S. Black Gold Technologies vs. Union of India and Commissioner of Customs, Additional Commissioner of Customs. | The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the release upon payment of duties and compliance with conditions, while also waiving demurrage and detention charges. | Case-No-2 |
Source: CESTAT, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & MADRAS HIGH COURT
This Article is Authored by: Mr. Ravi Shekhar Jha, BALLB/Mob: +91-9999005379. The Author can be directly reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
In case you face any issues related to Indirect Tax-Customs, GST, Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), Arbitration matters and Central Licensing and related advisory matters in India then please feel free to get in touch with SJ EXIM Services.
We offer Legal advice and litigation support in matters related to Indirect Tax-Customs, FTP, other Indirect Tax matters & Arbitration law, all sorts of Central licensing and related matters. Come and explore the new way of doing business with us!
Connect with us for more-
@ Team S J EXIM SERVICES, New Delhi, IN
CP: Ms. Shubhra Jha, Founder
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005693
Web: www.sjexim.services
EMAIL: operations@sjexim.services I shubhra@sjexim.services
Facebook: www.facebook.com/sjeximservices
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/90794255/admin/feed/posts/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@sjeximIndia
Subscribe our WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaTxDT8JZg4CHEOSoK47
Subscribe our Telegram Channel: https://t.me/sjeximindia
Disclaimer:
1. The Author’s views are based his interpretation of the relevant information/documents, applicable law, and government policy and there is no assurance that a court or tribunal or regulatory body or other governmental authority may not interpret it differently.
2. We are not responsible for updating or revising this article on account of any change in law or interpretation thereof or a change in events or circumstances informed or occurring after the date of this article unless specifically requested for it.
3. In spite of best care and caution, various types of errors and omissions inclusive of, in statement of the law and in tracing and eliminating overruled and reversed cases etc., and in procurement of various amendments and their incorporation in Acts, Rules, Regulations and orders, etc., and similarly in procurement of various notifications and various State Amendments etc. , and state Acts and State Amendments, etc. , and in proof reading creep in, for which our patrons will please bear with us and any discrepancy noticed may kindly be brought to our knowledge so that it is taken care of in the next edition, if updated, which will improve our services.
4. Further, it is notified that this publication is Free with the clear understanding that Authors / Editors / Printers and Publishers are not responsible for any damage or loss accruing to anybody therefrom and for the result of any action taken on the basis of this work nor for any errors or omissions, etc., to any whether a purchaser of this publication or not.
5. Our advice should not be taken or used out of context or reproduced for any other purpose or transaction. Views expressed in this update are strictly personal, based on our understanding of the underlying law. We are not responsible for any injury, loss or cost arising to any person who refers to this update and acts or refrains from any act accordingly. We would suggest that detailed legal advice must be sought before relying on this update.
6. All Inquiries/Consulting request/Advisory request are solicited via email only & it is a PAID Service only!
#Arbitration #ArbitrationLaw #ADR #India #Law #LegalUpdates #NewDelhi #LawFirm #Lawyers #IndirectTax #IndirectTaxLaw #CBIC #FTP #CommercialLaw #CorporateLaw #ConstitutionalLaw #BarandBench #InternationalArbitration #InternationalCommercialArbitration #UnitedNations #UNO #DutyDrawback #CustomsAct #Advisory #ProBonoConsulting #IndiaCustomsAtWork #Facebook #Twitter #Instagram #LinkedIn #Tumblr #WhatsAppChannel #WhatsApp #YouTubeChannel #YouTube #KPMG #Deloitte #ErnstandYoung #GrantThornton #EY #PWC #BDO #Consulting #SettlementCase #DGFT #CII #FICCI #IndianChamberofCommerce #InternationalChamberofCommerce #PHDChamberofCommerce #FTP #FTP2023 #Compliance #QCO #BIS #CDSCO #HighCourts #SupremeCourt #DPIIT #CESTAT #CAAR #AdvanceRuling #CEX #Appeal #Refunds #IGSTRefund #Google #GoogleSearch #GoogleSEO #FTA #CustomsAdvanceRuling #IndiaUAECEPA #SIMSRegistration #MinistryofSteelNOC #WorldBank #BusinessReady #BReport2024
Leave a ReplyCancel reply