Home Case Index All Cases Customs This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 161 to 180 of 40536 Records

• 2025 (6) TMI 554
  

  Benefit of N/N. 32/2005-Cus. dated 08.04.2005 under the Target Plus Scheme (TPS) - importer not having directly used the imported plastic granules in the manufacture of the exported products - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, TPS is basically a post-export incentive/reward scheme where the scope of actual user is very limited; to put it in very simple words, there is no export obligation on the part of the importers.

  At this juncture it is relevant to refer to our observations in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Aircargo) vs. Sunstar Overseas Ltd. [2025 (5) TMI 670 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein it was held that 'PP granules were imported which were converted into plastic bags/inner layers of bags that were claimed to have been used as a „packing material’ for Rice that was exported. So, „a pound of flesh’ could never be without „a drop of blood’ and hence, there is a possibility that the PP granules would belong to the genus, if not the species. Hence, we have to accept the reasoning given in the impugned order that the packing materials used for packing the export product were mentioned in the Shipping Bills for the year 2004-05, which were also furnished before the Adjudicating Authority. Based on an overall analysis, the Original Authority has come to the conclusion that the twin conditions have been fulfilled by the assessee and that there was no material on record suggesting the violation of those twin conditions. Even before us, the Revenue has not placed any supporting evidence in this regard, other than trying to build their case on mere arguments.'

  Conclusion - The Commissioner of Customs' order granting TPS benefits to the importer upheld.

  Since there are no actual difference, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs and hence the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 553
  

  Levy of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 - evasion of customs duty - CD-ROMs under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme by grossly overvaluing it with an intention to wrongly avail DEPB scrips - Reliability of statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order, so far as it relates to the appellant, shows that it has placed reliance upon the statements made by Raminder Mohan Singh, Ratinder Pal Singh Bhatia and Davender Lal under section 108 of the Customs Act to conclude that the appellant was associated with the activities of Netcompware.

  The statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be relied upon if the procedure followed under section 138B of the Customs Act is not followed - Except for the statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act, there is no other evidence which has been considered by the Commissioner in the impugned order for imposing penalty upon the appellant under section 114 of the Customs Act. As these statements cannot be relied upon, the imposition of penalty upon the appellant under section 114 of the Customs Act cannot be sustained and is set aside.

  Conclusion - In the present case, the goods had been exported and, therefore, the goods could not have been confiscated under section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act can be levied only if the goods are held liable to confiscation under section 113 of the Customs Act. As the confiscation cannot be sustained, penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act cannot also be sustained.

  The impugned order dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner in so far as it imposes penalty upon the appellant under section 114 of the Customs Act is set aside - the appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 552
  

  Rejection of transaction values of the goods declared by the respondents - re-determination of the values - confiscation of goods seized and handed over to the respondents for safe custody, but which subsequently went missing while in their custody - non-imposition of redemption fine with respect to all the rolls of fabrics which were lost while in the custody of the respondents and were not found during the joint inspection, although they were actually seized and were found missing while in the custody of respondent.

  HELD THAT:- Re-determination of the correct value of the goods, confirmation of demand of the differential duty and confiscation of the goods under section 111 in the impugned order are not disputed. What is in dispute is when the goods were seized handed over the respondent for safe custody and they went missing while in their custody, whether such goods can be confiscated or not.

  The Commissioner does not dispute that the goods were liable for confiscation. He did not confiscate the goods only to the extent that they were lost while in the custody of the respondents. This is not a case where the goods were not seized at all or where they were not available for seizure. The goods were seized and the Commissioner found that they were liable for confiscation. After the seizure of the goods and before the adjudication proceedings, the goods were handed over to the respondents for safe custody. From their custody the goods went missing. The liability of the goods for confiscation does not get extinguished simply because the respondents had either diverted the goods or pilfered or were negligent to let the goods go missing from their custody.

  Sometimes, after the goods are seized, they are provisionally released to the importer with the condition that he would pay any redemption fine which may be imposed in lieu of the confiscation if they are confiscated. Even in this case, the goods were left to the custody of the respondent and it was their responsibly to ensure that the goods were available till the completion of the adjudication proceedings. If the goods are confiscated, they vest in the Central Government and the officer adjudging the confiscation shall take possession of the confiscated goods as per section 126 of the Act. Had the goods been not diverted or lost through the negligence while in the custody of respondents they would have been confiscated and they would have been vested in the Central Government. Since the goods were lost by the respondents, they need to be pay a redemption fine in lieu of the goods.

  Both appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the rolls of fabrics seized by the department which went missing while in the custody of the department are held liable for confiscation and the respondent shall be liable for paying redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. The matter is remanded to Commissioner to determine the redemption fine and penalties accordingly.

  Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 551
  

  100 % EOU - seeking refund of Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) paid under protest - HELD THAT:- The identical issue came up for consideration before a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in relation to the remission of duty owing to same fire by accident in appellant’s own case M/S. PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LIMITED (100% EOU) VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2023 (12) TMI 859 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that 'The goods imported were destroyed in fire and therefore, there is no requirement to look into the fulfilment of the conditions of Notification No.52/2003 dated 31.03.2003. We find that the appellant is eligible for remission of duty. Having been paid under protest, the appellant is eligible for refund.'

  Conclusion - i) The appellant is entitled to refund of ADD paid on goods destroyed by fire within the EOU. ii) Interest on delayed payment of ADD is payable.

  The appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 550
  

  Levy of penalty u/s 114 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - evasion of customs duty - CD-ROMs under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme by grossly overvaluing it with an intention to wrongly avail DEPB scrips - Reliability of statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order, so far as it relates to the appellant, shows that it has placed reliance upon the statements made by the appellant on 28.06.1999 and 24.03.2000 under section 108 of the Customs Act that he was involved in the import of 40,000 CD-ROMs by Arvind International. The Commissioner has also placed reliance upon the statements made by Pankaj Soni on 22.11.1999 and 03.04.2000 under section 108 of the Customs Act as also the statement made on 28.06.2000 by Raminder Mohan Singh under section 108 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner has also considered the statement dated 21.08.2000 made by the appellant retracting his earlier statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act.

  The statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be relied upon if the procedure followed under section 138B of the Customs Act is not followed - Except for the statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act, there is no other evidence which has been considered by the Commissioner in the impugned order for imposing penalty upon the appellant under section 114 of the Customs Act. As these statements cannot be relied upon, the imposition of penalty upon the appellant under section 114 of the Customs Act cannot be sustained and is set aside.

  Conclusion - In the present case, the goods had been exported and, therefore, the goods could not have been confiscated under section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act can be levied only if the goods are held liable to confiscation under section 113 of the Customs Act. As the confiscation cannot be sustained, penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act cannot also be sustained.

  The impugned order dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner in so far as it imposes penalty upon the appellant under section 114 and 112 of the Customs Act is set aside - the appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 549
  

  Levy of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 - evasion of customs duty - CD-ROMs under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme by grossly overvaluing it with an intention to wrongly avail DEPB scrips - Reliability of statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order, so far as it relates to the appellant, shows that it has placed reliance upon the statement made by the appellant on 30.08.1999 under section 108 of the Customs Act that he was involved in the withdrawal of cash from the Bank.

  The statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be relied upon if the procedure followed under section 138B of the Customs Act is not followed - Except for the statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act, there is no other evidence which has been considered by the Commissioner in the impugned order for imposing penalty upon the appellant under section 114 of the Customs Act. As these statements cannot be relied upon, the imposition of penalty upon the appellant under section 114 of the Customs Act cannot be sustained and is set aside.

  Conclusion - In the present case, the goods had been exported and, therefore, the goods could not have been confiscated under section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act can be levied only if the goods are held liable to confiscation under section 113 of the Customs Act. As the confiscation cannot be sustained, penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act cannot also be sustained.

  The impugned order dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner in so far as it imposes penalty upon the appellant under section 114 and 112 of the Customs Act is set aside - the appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 548
  

  Levy of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 - evasion of customs duty - CD-ROMs under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme by grossly overvaluing it with an intention to wrongly avail DEPB scrips - Reliability of statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order, so far as it relates to the appellant, shows that it has placed reliance upon the statements made by the appellant and other persons under section 108 of the Customs Act that he was connected with Sundram Exports and was involved in the exports of CD-ROMs.

  The statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be relied upon if the procedure followed under section 138B of the Customs Act is not followed - Except for the statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act, there is no other evidence which has been considered by the Commissioner in the impugned order for imposing penalty upon the appellant under section 114 of the Customs Act. As these statements cannot be relied upon, the imposition of penalty upon the appellant under section 114 of the Customs Act cannot be sustained and is set aside.

  Conclusion - In the present case, the goods had been exported and, therefore, the goods could not have been confiscated under section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act can be levied only if the goods are held liable to confiscation under section 113 of the Customs Act. As the confiscation cannot be sustained, penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act cannot also be sustained.

  The impugned order dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner in so far as it imposes penalty upon the appellant under section 114 and 112 of the Customs Act is set aside - the appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 547
  

  Cassification of imported Styrene Butadiene Copolymer (SBC) - to be classifiable under CTH 39039010/39039090 or CTH 40021990? - wrongful availment of benefit of Sr. No. 262/266 of Not. No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 - demand of differential duty with interest and penalty - extended period of limitation.

  HELD THAT:- The learned Adjudicating Authority has confirmed classification of the product under CTH 4002 mainly for the reasons that the entries under CTH 3903 do not cover styrene butadiene copolymer and entry claimed by the appellant does not cover copolymer at all. The entry under CTH 4002 covers styrene butadiene rubber specifically and also because of the certificate dt.27.09.2023 of the former supplier INEOS Solutions of Singapore with respect to styrene butadiene copolymer with proprietary name KR99HG cannot be relied as the importer has not produced any evidence that the goods covered in the present three notices were supplied by INEOS Solutions, Singapore. The importer has also not produced any technical literature to support claimed classification. Similarly, the certificate dated 08.04.2008 issued by Chevron Philips Chemical, Singapore is irrelevant. Therefore, he held classification of the imported goods under 40021990.

  It is found that revenue had not conducted any lab testing on their own to find out if the conditions of Chapter 40 are satisfied or not. It only disputed various certificates provided by the appellant on the ground of same being not related etc. It is also found that the earlier product classification entry 39039010 is not in contention as neither the appellant nor the respondent is seeking classification under this entry. Appellant submitted that only due to clerical mistakes, the old tariff entry was indicated on some of the Bills of entry though revenue wise there is no difference in classification now being treated under Tariff Entry 39039090 or the earlier entry of 39039010 if taken into consideration but it was pleaded that the Tariff entry of 40021990 being indicated by the Revenue was incorrect. The product is essentially a copolymer of styrene and butadiene where styrene monomer is more than 70% by weight. For the product KR99HG grade of SBC, which has been predominantly imported, styrene monomer is 75% and butadiene monomer is 25%.

  Thus, it is clear that in copolymer where every monomer is 95% of weight, classification shall be determined as polymer of that monomer which predominates by weight. Therefore, in the instant case, since styrene predominates which is more than 70% in all grades of SBC, the same has to be treated as “polymer of styrene” and has to be classified as such. CTH 3903 covers polymers of styrene specifically.

  Admittedly, Revenue has not conducted any tests nor sought any expert technical opinion in support of satisfaction of above requirements. Revenue has simply relied upon the document of 2008 of Chevron Phillips Singapore which is the predecessor company of INEOS Solutions Singapore which transferred its K-Resin SBC business/manufacturing facilities to INEOS Solutions in 2016. Appellant has relied upon the certificate issued by INEOS Solutions Singapore, the group which has supplied the products in question during the relevant period. Appellant has also relied upon test reports given by IRMRA as per which the conditions of Note 4 of Chapter 40 are not satisfied.

  In the present case, no application of the product, as a non-thermoplastic (i.e.) thermoset) material has been brought on record in sync with requirement of note 4 to chapter 40. It has been submitted that product is used as thermoplastic material in various industries including footwear industries. The properties are akin to more of a plastic which can be recycled. Therefore, it can be said that the product draws its essential characteristics as a plastic and not as rubber, and thus, by referring to Rule 3(b) also, the product needs to classified under CTH 3903.

  The impugned order classifying the product under CTH 4002 cannot be sustained.

  Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The extended period of limitation has been invoked in a situation where product is admittedly correctly declared on the commercial invoices and bills of entry, where generic name 'styrene butadiene copolymer' as well as the proprietary grade name has been mentioned - The correct classification in a situation like the present one requires significant understanding of chemistry-and-customs law including HSN explanatory notes. The factual details of the products were not miş declared at all. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any misdeclaration of product by the Appellant, and thus, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

  Conclusion - The Revenue has failed to establish that the goods are not classifiable in Customs Tariff Heading 3903 and are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 4002. As the Revenue has failed to discharge it’s burden, the goods are rightly classified by the importer under Customs Tariff Heading 3903 as copolymer of styrene butadiene. Consequently, demand of duty & interest confirmed on the importer vide impugned order cannot be sustained. The penalties imposed, confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine are also set aside.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 546
  

  Entitlement to claim exemption from customs duty on imported gold jewellery under the preferential tariff concession agreement between India and Thailand, specifically under notification no. 85/2005-Cus - discharge of burden to prove - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has not rendered any findings on the formula determination, it has not been suggested that rule 15 of the said Rules had been invoked and the statements of co-noticee cannot, by the nature of ‘relevance’ institutionalised in Customs Act, 1962, be subjected to the test prescribed or not covered by exception in section 138B of Customs Act, 1962 owing to which the contents thereof are inadmissible in adjudication proceedings. In any case, the exemption being borne out of treaty negotiations, and subject to terms of negotiations set out in the enabling notifications, there can be no substitute for process so prescribed.

  As far as the seized jewellery is concerned, the presumption in section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, though available to insinuate origin, is rebuttable upon which onus shifts to the customs authorities to establish that the gold was smuggled. Failure to do so cannot shift the burden back in the absence of clear finding that the documents submitted are not genuine. That onus has not been discharged in the impugned order.

  Conclusion - The action taken on the imported goods is without validity for having ignored the prescriptions on ascertainment of country of origin as well as the authenticity of the certification.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 545
  

  Levy of penalty u/s 114 (iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act., 1962 - diversion of export consignment covered under the five shipping bills to Jebel Ali to assist the exporter to fraudulently avail the benefit of the Focus Market Scheme without exporting the goods to the notified country - HELD THAT:- A manifest has to be filed before departure of the goods and has to be delivered to the proper officer containing the specified particulars. The container was booked to export the goods to Colon Free Zone, Panama and the same was mentioned in the Shipping Bill as well. It is a fact that there were no fraudulent amendments in the five Shipping Bills pertaining to goods carried by the appellant. According to the appellant, the goods were carried to Colon Free Zone Panama and thereafter, on the request of the booking party, the consignment was carried to Jebel Ali Port, Dubai and the appellant charged freight for carrying the goods from exporting port in India to Colon Free Zone, Panama and then to Jebel Ali port at Dubai, which fact has been stated by V.K. Krishna Kumar in his statement. In support of this contention, the appellant also filed e- mail communication and the container tracking report to show that the charges for carrying the shipment after it had arrived at Panama to Jebel Ali was negotiated and invoices were raised by the appellant. Knowledge and intention is sine qua non for imposing penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act.

  The department has not been able to establish knowledge on part of the appellant or intention on the part of the appellant to help the exporter in obtaining the alleged undue export advantage. In such circumstances, penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act cannot be imposed upon the appellant.

  Conclusion - The imposition of penalties under section 114(iii) and section 114AA of the Customs Act upon the appellant are set aside.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 544
  

  Refund of SAD paid by the importer - applicability of bar of limitation of one year, in terms of N/N. 93/2008(Cus) dated 01.08.2008 which has been issued in terms of section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 without selling the imported goods by the importer within one year of payment of SAD - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the records that the rejection by the original authority, as also the dismissal of the challenge thereof by the first appellate authority, was at the threshold itself on the bar of limitation. Eligibility for refund and the extent of entitlement thereof had not been considered on merit and on the documents furnished in accordance with the notification [no. 102/2007-Cus dated 14th September 2027].

  In view of these circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority for disposal of the refund application on merit as the controversy on bar of limitation has since been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.

  Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 543
  

  Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Allegations of involvement or abetment in the offence - smuggling of ozone depleting substance i e Refrigerant Gas (HCFC-22) - HELD THAT:- The forensic examination of the phone of Rupinder Singh Chaddha was in his presence on the same date on 13.06.2013 when it was seized and only the printouts of the data was taken and no data was taken in the soft form. The forensic examination was conducted again on 30.07.2013 when the impugned audio file stored in the same was discovered and since the backup was taken on 30.07.2013, it cannot be said that the recording was made on 30.07.2013, as it is merely the date of taking the back up. Hence, there are no merit in the submission of the learned Counsel in this regard. In so far as voice sample of the appellant which was taken on 05.08.2013, the same was not accepted by CFSL Chandigarh for the simple reason that the specimen voice was not in the same text of the question voice sample and thereafter when Rupinder Singh Chaddha was summoned for recording his voice sample in the text of questioned voice sample, he refrained from appearing. Lastly, we may take note of the call detail records recovered, which clearly showed that the appellant was regularly interacting with Shri Manish Jalhotra. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly concluded that the statements and the text of the audio recording clearly establishes the involvement of the appellant and hence is liable for penal action under Section 112 of the Act.

  In so far as the extent of proof is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that in judicial proceedings that involve evasion of tax laws or evasion of customs duty, lower threshold of proof, i.e., preponderance of probability is to be followed and it is not required to insist upon proving the case beyond reasonable doubt - the Revenue has established clear nexus between the four people who deliberately assembled at McDonald on 12.04.2013 with the sole purpose of seeking clearance of the containers. The chronology of events as referred above from 11th April to 20 April 2013, points to the time proximity of the meeting, which is an important factor reinforcing the objective of clearance of the smuggled goods.

  The entire controversy is centred around the meeting held at McDonald restaurant on 12.04.2013, where four people who were known to each other through the common factor of Manish Jalhotra. One thing is clear from the records and the investigations made that the meeting was not incidental but was preplanned where all the four parties had gathered for a specific purpose. In the ordinary course, had the goods been imported as per the declaration made, there was no need for assimilating several people to draw up the strategy for clearance of the goods. This denotes that all the four persons, who met there had knowledge that the consignment which has to be cleared contained restricted/prohibited goods which is not permissible to be imported.

  Moreover, the appellants namely, Manish Jalhotra, Rupinder Singh Chaddha, and Sandeep Kumar Moria admitted their presence, however, variant descriptions have been given to somehow circumvent the true nature of the transaction. The identity of Vikas was misconceived and misrepresented as determined by the Department, it was none else, but Shri Manish Jalhotra, the mastermind and the actual importer of R–22 Rrefrigeratrant Gas. In the circumstances, the impugned order has rightly imposed proportionate penalty considering the respective role and involvement of the appellants, who were party to the transaction of clearance of the containers under the provisions of Section 112 of the Act.

  Conclusion - The confiscation of the restricted goods and the declared goods used for concealment is lawful and justified. The penalties imposed under Section 112(a) on the appellants are upheld as warranted by their active participation and conspiracy to smuggle restricted goods.

  There are no good reason to interfere with the impugned order imposing penalties on the appellants under the provisions of Section 112 of the Act. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 433
  

  Locus standi of appellant to file an appeal - appellant is not a party to the proceedings and he cannot be considered as an aggrieved person to file an appeal before the Tribunal - alleged forgery of shipping bills - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner herein is not a party to the original proceedings and he is not even a co-noticee. Admittedly, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner in the original proceedings, namely, the order in original dated 28.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port - Import). The Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order has rightly held that merely because investigation was initiated on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, it cannot be considered that the petitioner is aggrieved by such an order and has come to the right conclusion that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the appeal. There is no infirmity in the findings of the Appellate Tribunal.

  The petitioner is also unable to point out to this Court as to what provisions under the Customs Act, the complaint was lodged against the second respondent. When the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port - Import) in his order in original dated 28.08.2009, after giving due consideration to the findings of the investigation, passed an order letting off the second respondent (Customs House Agent) with severe warning and the petitioner, who is not a party to the said proceedings, the question of interfering with the order of the Appellate Tribunal by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise.

  There are no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 432
  

  Confiscation of foreign origin Cigarette under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 - levy of penalty u/s 112(b) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - sufficiency of the Panchnama (seizure memo) drawn during the investigation - admissibility of the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - burden of proof - Valuation of the seized goods.

  Validity of panchnama - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the Panchama, it is found that all the basic and relevant information required at that stage were duly incorporated. The time and place of calling the panch witnesses, the identity of the officer has been clearly mentioned, the purpose of the whole proceedings was duly intimated. The further details of accompanying the officers at the site in question at the time and place and specific details of the nature of the truck and its registration number which was intercepted have been mentioned in the Panchama. The next important step was the identification of the three persons, who were found supervising the unloading of the main truck, the driver, the helper and agent of the supplier. Further, the production of the E- way bill with serial number 491041939631 dated 20.12 .2018 describing the goods as metal planter and on being checked randomly, cartons of cigarettes of foreign origin with brand name of Indonesia was found. Similarly the search of the godown resulted in the recovery of foreign origin cigarettes, however, none was able to produce valid documents for carriage or possession of the said cigarettes.

  In the case of Mukesh Industries [2008 (8) TMI 667 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], it was noticed that the adjudicating authority himself has held that Panchama so recorded cannot be relied upon as the same was found to be recorded by unfair means, which is not the case here. In that case, it was held that if the drawal of the Panchama was itself doubtful, the entire case booked by the Preventive Branch cannot be allowed to stand on its own legs. Such is not the case here and moreover, it is not apparent from the order as to the nature of defects or deficiencies found in the Panchnama. In the case of Anand Kumar, it is the Department who filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had found the panchnama to be doubtful. The present case is entirely different, and hence no reliance can be placed on the said decision.

  In view of the settled principle that illegal search and seizure, would not be rejected but requires to be examined carefully, it is opined that the so-called deficiencies made out by the appellant are not required to be part of the Panchnama and, therefore, does not affect the reliability of the Panchama.

  Statements recorded under section 108 of the Act being without any corroboration - HELD THAT:- The law on the admissibility of the confessional statement made to the customs officers has been settled in large number of decisions that if found to be voluntary, can form the sole basis for conviction. The self-implicatory statement given by the appellant clearly establishes his involvement in smuggling of the seized cigarettes of foreign origin in the absence of any valid documents. The statement has not been retracted by the appellant at any point of time.

  The goods seized in the present case are cigarettes of foreign origin. From the legal provisions cigarettes can be freely imported subject to the provisions of Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and the Rules framed thereunder which envisages that on the box, carton, and pouch type of package, the specified health warning shall appear on both sides of the packages and shall cover 85% of each side or face of the principal display and 60% shall cover pictorial health warning and 25% shall cover textual health warning. No such compliance was found on the seized foreign origin cigarette packets. Also under the Legal Metrology Packaged Commodities Rules 2011, framed under Legal Metrology Act, 2009 it is mandatory to provide the name and address of the manufacturer or importer or packer, quantity of the product, month and year of manufacturing or pre-packing or importation, the retail sale price etc. on the packages of tobacco products, which were not found on examination of the goods seized.

  Burden of proof - HELD THAT:- The cartons of cigarettes of foreign origin were seized in the presence of the appellant from the mini truck, godown and the residential premises of the appellant. As noted above, the appellant failed to produce any document to prove that the cigarettes seized were validly imported. In the absence thereof, the authorities below have rightly concluded that the goods in question were smuggled goods and was therefore rightly confiscated.

  Valuation of the seized goods - HELD THAT:- The e-way bill provided at the time of search, described the goods as metal planters whereas on search, cartons containing cigarettes of foreign origin were recovered which were found to be smuggled goods. It is not a case of rejection of the declared value as there was no declared value and hence the applicability of the Valuation Rules does not arise. The appellant neither produced the documents in support of the import made or the value declared and since the smuggled goods being cigarettes, the price thereof was verified on the basis of discrete market enquiry. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the market price arrived at by the department.

  Conclusion - i) The Panchnama as quoted above, clearly sets out the entire procedure of the search and seizure, leading to the recovery of smuggled cigarettes for which the applicant was not able to produce any legal documents. ii) Once an admission has been made by the petitioner, the denial of right to cross examine the witnesses is justified as no prejudice can be pleaded by such a party. iii) The burden is on the appellant to establish that the seized cigarettes were not smuggled.

  There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence the same is hereby affirmed. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 381
  

  Seeking release of detained gold - detention and confiscation of goods without issuance of a valid show cause notice and personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - waiver of SCN - pre-printed waiver obtained by the Customs Department from the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is noted that no Show Cause Notice has been issued in this case as the Customs Department is relying on the standard pre-printed waiver that was obtained from the Petitioner. The validity of such pre-printed waiver of show cause notices and personal hearing has been considered by this Court in various matters, including in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs [2025 (2) TMI 385 - DELHI HIGH COURT].

  The law is well settled, that the Customs Department cannot rely on pre-printed waiver of show cause notice as the same would be contrary to the requirement of Section 124 of the Act. In light of the above discussions, it is clear that the continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the show cause notice or the personal hearing have been waived via a pre-printed waiver - in the facts of this case, since no show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner due to a pre-printed waiver, the detained goods would be liable to be released to the Petitioner.

  The impugned order-in-original is set aside to the effect that it orders absolute confiscation. However, in the facts of this case, the Petitioner shall pay the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 50% of the warehousing/storage charges.

  Conclusion - i) The printed waiver of SCN and the printed statement made in the request for release of goods cannot be considered or deemed to be an oral SCN, in compliance with Section 124. The SCN in the present case is accordingly deemed to have not been issued and thus the detention itself would be contrary to law.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 380
  

  Seeking release of deatined goods - detention and confiscation of goods without issuance of a valid show cause notice and personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - waiver of SCN - pre-printed waiver obtained by the Customs Department from the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is noted that no Show Cause Notice has been issued in this case as the Customs Department is relying on the standard pre-printed waiver that was obtained from the Petitioner. The validity of such pre-printed waiver of show cause notices and personal hearing has been considered by this Court in various matters, including in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs [2025 (2) TMI 385 - DELHI HIGH COURT].

  The law is well settled, that the Customs Department cannot rely on pre-printed waiver of show cause notice as the same would be contrary to the requirement of Section 124 of the Act. In light of the above discussions, it is clear that the continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the show cause notice or the personal hearing have been waived via a pre-printed waiver - in the facts of this case, since no show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner due to a pre-printed waiver, the detained goods would be liable to be released to the Petitioner.

  The impugned order-in-original is set aside to the effect that it orders absolute confiscation. However, in the facts of this case, the Petitioner shall pay the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 50% of the warehousing/storage charges.

  Conclusion - i) The absolute confiscation order was set aside due to non-compliance with Section 124. ii) The detained jewellery was ordered to be released upon payment of penalty and storage charges. iii) The petitioner's waiver of SCN and hearing was held invalid and cannot be relied upon to bypass statutory safeguards.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 379
  

  Seeking release of detained articles - personal effects or not - detention and confiscation of goods without issuance of a valid show cause notice and personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - waiver of SCN - pre-printed waiver obtained by the Customs Department from the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- The issue whether gold jewellery worn by a passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects under the Rules, has now been settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court as also this Court.

  The Supreme Court in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors. v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, [2017 (8) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT], while considering the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’) read with the Baggage Rules, 1998, that were in force during the relevant period, held that it is not permissible to completely exclude jewellery from the ambit of ‘personal effects’.

  Thus, it is now settled that the used jewellery worn by the passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects in terms of the Rules, which would be exempt from detention by the Customs Department - In view of the above and considering the facts of the case, it is clear that the detained articles are the personal effects of the Petitioner.

  The detained articles being personal effects of the Petitioner, the detention of the same itself would be contrary to law. Accordingly, the detained articles would be liable to be released on this ground itself. The gold items shall be released by the Customs Department to the Petitioner.

  Conclusion - i) The printed waiver of SCN and the printed statement made in the request for release of goods cannot be considered or deemed to be an oral SCN, in compliance with Section 124. ii) The impugned Order-in-Original dated 1st August, 2024 is set aside to the extent that it orders absolute confiscation.

  The impugned Order-in-Original dated 1st August, 2024 is set aside to the extent that it orders absolute confiscation - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 378
  

  Seeking release of one gold chain and iPhones - goods were for personal use or not - detention and confiscation of goods without issuance of a valid show cause notice and personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - waiver of SCN - pre-printed waiver obtained by the Customs Department from the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- The detained gold chain weighing 117 grams has been permitted to be released subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- along with applicable duty - whereas the three iPhones have been ordered for absolute confiscation.

  It is noted that no Show Cause Notice has been issued in this case as the Customs Department is relying on the standard pre-printed waiver that was obtained from the Petitioner. The validity of such pre-printed waiver of show cause notices and personal hearing has been considered by this Court in various matters, including in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs [2025 (2) TMI 385 - DELHI HIGH COURT].

  The law is well settled, that the Customs Department cannot rely on pre-printed waiver of show cause notice as the same would be contrary to the requirement of Section 124 of the Act. In light of the above discussions, it is clear that the continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the show cause notice or the personal hearing have been waived via a pre-printed waiver - in the facts of this case, since no show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner due to a pre-printed waiver, the detained goods would be liable to be released to the Petitioner.

  Since the Petitioner is already before the Revisional Authority, in so far as the gold chain is concerned, the same is directed to be released upon payment of the redemption fine and storage charges only - Further, in so far as the three iPhones are concerned, let the Revisional Authority decide the same within a period of two months, bearing in mind the order passed by this Court in Chaksu Garg [2025 (6) TMI 277 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where the Adjudicating Authority had given an option to redeem the seized iPhones upon payment of Rs. 32,000/- as redemption fee.

  Conclusion - i) The printed waiver of SCN and the printed statement made in the request for release of goods cannot be considered or deemed to be an oral SCN, in compliance with Section 124. ii) The order passed in original without issuance of SCN and without hearing the Petitioner, is not sustainable in law.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 377
  

  Seeking release of the silver polished gold chain - reliability of a pre-printed waiver signed by the petitioner to dispense with the issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) and personal hearing as required under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - till date no show cause notice has been issued and no personal hearing has been granted to the Petitioner - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is noted that no show cause notice has been issued in this case as the Customs Department is relying on the standard pre-printed waiver that was obtained from the Petitioner. The validity of such pre-printed waiver of SCN and personal hearing has been considered by this Court in various matters, including in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, [2025 (2) TMI 385 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Mr Makhinder Chopra vs Commissioner of Customs New Delhi, [2025 (3) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'This Court is of the opinion that the printed waiver of SCN and the printed statement made in the request for release of goods cannot be considered or deemed to be an oral SCN, in compliance with Section 124. The SCN in the present case is accordingly deemed to have not been issued and thus the detention itself would be contrary to law. The order passed in original without issuance of SCN and without hearing the Petitioner, is not sustainable in law.'

  Thus, the law is well settled, that the Customs Department cannot rely on pre-printed waiver of show cause notice as the same would be contrary to the requirement of Section 124 of the Act. In light of the above discussions, it is clear that the continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the show cause notice or the personal hearing have been waived via a pre-printed waiver.

  Once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a Show Cause Notice and afford a personal hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed under Section 110 of Act, is a period of six months. However, subject to complying with the requirements therein, a further extension for a period of six months can be taken by the Customs Department for issuing the show cause notice. In this case, the one year period itself has elapsed, yet no show cause notice has been issued. Accordingly, the detention is impermissible - the detention of the Petitioner’s jewellery is accordingly set aside.

  Considering that the Petitioner is willing to re-export the detained jewellery, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear for appraisement before the Customs Authority on 9th June, 2025. After accepting the undertaking for re-export and payment of storage charges/warehousing charges, the detained jewellery shall be released to the Petitioner - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 376
  

  Entitlement to duty drawback - whether unlocking of mobile phones would result in withdrawal of duty drawback benefits to the Petitioner? - HELD THAT:- This issue is no longer res integra and has been decided in a batch of cases, with the lead petition being, M/s AIMS Retail Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. [2025 (2) TMI 596 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the Court has held that 'Drawbacks are benefits which are given to exporters and in the case of any ambiguity such benefits should go in favour of the exporters and not the other way round. The unlocking/activation of the mobile phone merely makes the mobile phone more usable in the destination country and the same would therefore not constitute “taken into use” under proviso to Rule 3 of Duty Drawback Rules.'

  The Court has held that duty drawback may be claimed in respect of unlocked mobile phones being exported, as the mere act of unlocking does not constitute the phones being “taken into use” within the meaning of the applicable provisions. Given that a mobile phone is capable of being utilized in several ways, the mere unlocking thereof cannot be deemed as the Petitioners having “taken it into use.”

  Furthermore, this Court has observed that with the expansion of mobile phone manufacturing and assembly in India, the volume of exports is expected to increase. The mere fact that the said products are configured for use in foreign jurisdictions cannot operate as a ground to deprive the Petitioners of their rightful claim to duty drawback under the prevailing legal framework. The present case also pertains to the Respondents’ rejection of the Petitioner’s request for duty drawback on unlocked mobile phones being exported.

  The impugned Order-in-Original dated 26th June, 2023 is set aside - Appeal allowed.

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 2027