“Indirect Tax I Indirect Tax Litigation I Customs & FTP I Central Licensing I Arbitration I Advisory”
Dated: 18.02.2025
CESTAT Delhi clarifies key aspects of customs classification, duty assessment, and exemptions with regards to parts import by Automobile makers
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi delivered a ruling on February 17, 2025, in Customs Appeal No. 51790 of 2022, concerning a customs duty dispute between M/s. Battre Electric Mobility Pvt. Ltd. and the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad (Import), New Delhi.
Background of the Case:
- Battre Electric Mobility Pvt. Ltd. imported spare parts of e-scooters and classified them under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8708 99 00 (automobile parts), attracting 15% Basic Customs Duty (BCD).
- During a post-clearance audit, customs authorities reclassified the imports under CTI 8711 60 20 (complete electric scooters in disassembled form), which attracted a 100% BCD.
- The customs department demanded a differential duty of ₹55.2 crore (₹5,52,09,099), along with a penalty of ₹50 lakh, citing misclassification and duty evasion.
Key Issues Addressed:
- Classification of Imported Goods:
- The customs department argued that Battre Electric imported all essential components of e-scooters in equal numbers, making them complete e-scooters in disassembled form under CTI 8711 60 20.
- The company countered that the shipments contained only spare parts, not full e-scooters, and that several critical components, like batteries, were procured locally.
2. Assessment of Multiple Bills of Entry Together:
- Customs authorities combined 26 different Bills of Entry to justify their reclassification.
- CESTAT ruled this approach invalid, stating that each Bill of Entry must be assessed independently as per the Customs Act.
3. Applicability of Exemption Notification:
- The company argued that even if the reclassification under CTI 8711 60 20 was correct, BCD should still be 15% due to exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus (as amended).
- The customs department denied this exemption because Battre had not claimed it in the Bill of Entry.
- CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that unconditional exemptions must be granted even if not explicitly claimed.
4. Confiscation & Penalty Under Section 111(m) & 112(a)(ii):
- Customs officials imposed confiscation and penalties for alleged misclassification.
- CESTAT overturned the decision, ruling that classification disputes do not justify confiscation or penalties unless there is deliberate misdeclaration.
Final Judgment by CESTAT:
- CESTAT set aside the customs demand of ₹55.2 crore and the ₹50 lakh penalty.
- Reaffirmed that each Bill of Entry should be assessed separately.
- Declared that unconditional exemptions cannot be denied for procedural lapses.
- Ruled that misclassification does not automatically imply fraud or misdeclaration.
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!
Source: CESTAT Delhi
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 views expressed are based on the 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. 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.
4. 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.
NOTE: All Inquiries/Consulting/Advisory/Assignments are solicited via email only & it is a PAID Service only!
#LawFirm #Lawyers #Arbitration #ArbitrationLaw #ADR #India #Law #LegalUpdates #NewDelhi #IndirectTax #IndirectTaxLaw #CBIC #FTP #CommercialLaw #CorporateLaw #ConstitutionalLaw #BarandBench #InternationalArbitration #InternationalCommercialArbitration #WTO #TBT #QCO #BIS #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 #CDSCO #HighCourts #SupremeCourt #DPIIT #CESTAT #CAAR #AdvanceRuling #CEX #Appeal #Refunds #IGSTRefund #Google #GoogleSearch #GoogleSEO #AIFTA #FTA #ASEAN #CustomsAdvanceRuling #JICA #JETROIndia #KITAIndia #KOTRAIndia #Multinationalcompanies #JapaninIndia #KoreainIndia #GovtofIndia #MinistryofcommerceIndia #TradeDeals #FTA #RulesofOrigin #SJEXIMServices #NewDelhi #India #Ministryofsteel #SteelQCO

Leave a ReplyCancel reply