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 461 to 480 of 40545 Records

• 2025 (4) TMI 1075
  

  Grant of scrips under the MEIS during the period June 2017 to August 2020 at the rate of 5% FOB value - HELD THAT:- Although the issue of classification of the Petitioners goods (involved in the present proceedings), has been contested on different levels, the dispute in the present Petition was restricted to the non-process of pending applications and non-granting of the reward/scrips under the MEIS as set out in the order dated 21st January 2025.

  In the event the classification dispute of the goods of the Petitioner is held against the Petitioner, and as a result thereof they are entitled to a lesser percentage of benefit under the MEIS, the excess amounts utilized under the scrips (granted pursuant to this order), will have to be refunded to the Authorities.

  38 applications in respect of which the duty credit scrip was sanctioned @ 2% are not reflecting on the DGFT portal and hence, cannot be processed and 1 application dated 13.06.2020 is also not visible/reflecting to Respondent No. 3 on the DGFT portal and hence, cannot be processed.

  List the above matter for compliance on 29th April 2025.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 1074
  

  Absolute Confiscation - seizure of 10 kg silver granules bearing foreign markings - levy of penalty - valid basis to seize the silver which is less than 100 kg or not - opportunity to cross-examine - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Whereas the silver granules involved in the case are 10 kg and thus the seizure is unwarranted. In any case, the seizure, in this case was affected by a Superintendent, who is not competent to seize the silver less than 100 kg and thereby the seizure is vitiated.

  In this regard, Department relies on Co-ordinate Bench order in the case of Bula Ghosh Vs Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata [[2003 (7) TMI 147 - CESTAT, KOLKATA]], in which it was held that Board Circular No. 394/233/88-Cus-As dated 11.06-1990 that the provision of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be invoked normally against the person who are found in possession of silver bullion of less than 100 kg. The expression used is normal and it does not debar the Revenue Officer to seize the silver in case they have believe and there is evidence to show that the same as of smuggled character. Therefore, Revenue Officers may seize the silver in special circumstances. But, in this matter, no any special circumstances to seize the silver bullion as Board Circular.

  There is no any evidence of the silver is smuggled otherwise appellant proved that he purchased under invoice which was onus on him.

  Conclusion - The Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) fail to consider appellant documents and also illegally denied the opportunity of cross-examination and believed one person statement and denied other without any judicious reason. Therefore, confiscation of silver granules as well as imposing penalty is not sustainable.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 1073
  

  Refund - Reassessment of Bill of Entry - clerical error/mistake in the B/E as the appellant has mistakenly mentioned particulars of invoice dated 19.11.2019 instead of invoice dated 22.11.2019 in the Bill of Entry No. 5793005 dated 22.11.2019 - HELD THAT:- The law on this issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the matter of DIMENSION DATA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND ANR. [2021 (1) TMI 1042 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in which the Hon’ble High Court, while referring the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ITC Ltd. [2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], has held that in the ITC decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that in case any person is aggrieved by an order which would include an order of re-assessment, he has to get the order modified u/s. 128 or under other relevant provisions of the Customs Act before he makes a claim for refund. This is because as long as the order is not modified the order remains on record holding the field and on that basis no refund can be claimed. The Hon’ble High Court has also held that in ITC decision (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not confined modification of the order through the mechanism of Section 128 only and it has been clarified therein that such modification can be done under other relevant provisions of the Customs Act also which would include Section 149 and Section 154 of the Customs Act.

  The reliance placed by the learned commissioner on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ITC, for coming to the conclusion that the assessment order has to be challenged by the importer in appellate forum and reassessment be done afterwards in commensurate with the order of the Appellate Authority, is also misplaced as in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in which the ITC decision has been explained by observing that even the order of self-assessment can also be modified u/s. 149 ibid.

  Conclusion - The proviso to Section 149 does not prohibit amendment of a Bill of Entry after clearance of goods if such amendment is based on documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared.

  The issue involved herein is no longer res integra and learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in setting aside the Order of re-assessment dated 5.2.2020 and the Order-in-Original dated 5.3.2020 passed by the respective lower authorities - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 1072
  

  Clearance of imported goods under Release order issued against DEPB Scrips by the DGFT - case of the department is that the DEPB Release Scrips against advice was issued fraudulently therefore, the import made on the basis of Release advice which is issued on the basis of fraudulent DEPB is liable for custom duty - HELD THAT:- The entire argument of the Learned Counsel is that since the DEPB Scrips and/or Release Advice has not been cancelled by the DGFT the same stand valid and import thereunder cannot be questioned. In these circumstances, it is found that the case of the department is that the DEPB Scrips was obtained fraudulently therefore any import made on that basis cannot be extended the benefit of duty free clearance under DEPB Scheme. However, despite the direction from this Tribunal, the Revenue could not produce the status report of the DEPB license/release advice issued there under. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for ascertaining status of DEPB License/release advice issued by DGFT and thereafter to pass a fresh order on all the issues.

  Conclusion - Due to lack of clarity on the status, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh de novo adjudication after ascertaining the status of the DEPB License/Release Advice issued by DGFT.

  Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 1022
  

  Classification as "Naphtha" under Tariff Item 27101290 or as "Natural Gasoline Liquid (NGL)" under Tariff Item 27101220 - Department responsibility to discharge burden cast on it to establish their claim for classification of goods - it was held by CESTAT that 'the classification of goods as Naphtha under Tariff item 27101290 as declared by the appellant is held to be correct.' - HELD THAT:- There are no good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 1021
  

  Monetary amount invlolved in the appeal - Undervaluation of the export goods - challenge to Expert Panel Opinion inasmuch as it does not reveal the source for the market value - it was held by CESTAT that 'Valuation provisions under the Customs Act apply only for levy and collection of customs duty and not otherwise.' - HELD THAT:- It is not inclined to issue notice in the present appeals but clarify that the question of law is left open.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 1020
  

  Demand of additional duty on the ground that as per the N/N.19/2005-Cus dated 01.03.2005, the goods covered under the exemption N/N. 24/2005-Cus dated 01.03.2005 are liable to pay additional duty at the rate of 4%. The goods imported by petitioner fell under the Customs Tariff (9027 80), which is found in the Customs Exemption N/N.24/2005-Cus. - HELD THAT:- he Customs Tariff Act specifies the rate at which duties of customs shall be levied. For the goods imported by petitioner in 2004 and 2005, the duty was 5%. In 2005-06, the goods were made free of customs duty. Therefore, what the Customs Tariff Act only signifies is what is the rate of duty that will be levied on goods imported into India. Section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides the rates at which duties of customs shall be levied under the Customs Act, 1962 and are specified in the First and Second Schedules. Notification No.19/2005 has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and in the table it only indicates the description of goods that shall be liable to additional duty at 4% ad valorem. That has nothing to do with Section 25 of the Customs Act. It does not mean that where goods are allowed to be imported free of customs duty, Government of India is not empowered under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 to exempt the goods from the whole of the customs duty leviable thereon under the First Schedule.

  The goods imported, even though exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under the respective enactments and they would be so subject unless and until they are specifically exempted by the competent authority in exercise of the powers vested under those respective enactments from such additional duty.

  The Division Bench in Century Floor Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [2013 (10) TMI 1053 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that under Section 25 of the Customs Act, the Government has authority to grant exemption from duty only conditionally or in absolute terms and in which event, the power under Section 25 of the Customs Act will only go for exempting generally and in absolute terms, thus making import free of any liability under the Act or permit import subject to other conditions as it may deem fit in the given circumstances. The Court held that there could not be much of difference in an item being notified under the Customs Tariff Act as nil or free, which matters very little.

  Conclusion - i) The petitioner's contention that goods exempted from basic customs duty cannot be subjected to additional duty is rejected. ii) Notification No.24/2005 is valid and not bad in law. iii) The levy of 4% additional duty under Notification No.19/2005 on goods covered under Notification No.24/2005 is lawful and valid.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 973
  

  Smuggling of Gold of foreign origin - existence of reasonable belief/evidence that the said goods have been smuggled into the country or not - shifting the onus to prove to the person from whose possession the goods were seized - levy of penalty on appellant - HELD THAT:- Board, vide its Circular No. 01/2017 dated 08.02.2017, has instructed to pass a specific order depicting the reasonable belief of the officer concerned while seizing the goods. Therefore, deviation thereof, clearly depicts that the seizure so made is illegal and hence, the goods are liable to be released and in corollary thereof, confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act 1962 is not at all warranted. Thus, when preliminary seizure of goods is in dispute, the SCN proceedings become vitiated in nature thereby making the impugned order liable to be quashed.

  Section 123 of the Customs Act clearly stipulates that a 'reasonable belief' that the gold is of smuggled in nature is mandatory for invocation of the said provision; However, in the present case no reasonable belief has been formed by the officers that the gold is of smuggled in nature and hence the provisions of Section 123 are not applicable in this case and the burden lies on the Department to prove that seized gold is of smuggled in nature. The Appellants contend that no evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to substantiate the allegation that the gold is of foreign origin and smuggled in nature.

  No reasonable belief has been formed by the officers that the gold is of smuggled in nature. It is also found that no evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to substantiate the allegation that the gold is of foreign origin and smuggled in nature. It is observed that the seizure of the gold without following the 'reasonable belief' that the gold is of smuggled in nature, is not sustainable.

  The only ground in which the gold was seized by the officers was that the appellant was not having any document for licit purchase of the same at the time when they were intercepted. It is observed that failure to produce documents in respect of the goods carried by a person does not ipso facto prove that the goods are contraband in nature. The allegation of smuggling needs to be proved with cogent reasoning and corroborative evidence thereof. Subsequently, if the appellant could produce documents for its legal purchase, the same cannot be ignored to conclude that the gold is of smuggled in nature.

  The burden under Section 123 of Customs Act, to prove that the gold is not smuggled in nature, does not lie on the Appellants, in this case. The onus is on the Departmental officers that the gold is of smuggled in nature. However, it is observed that the officers of the Department could not establish that the gold is of smuggled in nature.

  The documents submitted by the Appellant have not been proved to be false. However, despite having found that the documentary evidence submitted by the Appellants was genuine, the ld. adjudicating authority has held that the goods are liable for confiscation vide the Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2022. Considering the documentary evidence submitted by the appellants, there are no reason to reject the evidence of legal procurement of the gold produced by the Appellants. Consequently, the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to this case - the confiscation of the gold under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable.

  Penalties imposed on the Appellants - HELD THAT:- The ld. adjudicating authority has imposed the penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. As the gold is not liable for confiscation, there is no offence committed by the Appellants warranting imposition of penalty under Section 112 ibid. Accordingly, the penalties imposed on the Appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act are set aside.

  Conclusion - i) The seizure of gold was invalid due to non-formation of reasonable belief. ii) Section 123 was not attracted; burden of proof did not shift to appellants. iii) Documentary evidence of indigenous procurement was accepted, negating smuggling allegations. iv) Confiscation order was set aside. v) Penalties imposed under Section 112 were quashed.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 972
  

  Time limitation for issuance of SCN - Proceedings initiated against the appellant by issuance of a SCN dated 05.03.2018 that is said to have been received by the appellant on 09.03.2018 - SCN deemed to be conclusive as to the matters stated therein, in terms of section 28 (6) of the Customs Act, 1962 or not - HELD THAT:- The reason assigned by the Principal Commissioner for not giving benefit of section 28(6) of the Customs Act to the appellant is that an amount of Rs. 3,249/- demanded by the corrigendum dated 16.07.2019 issued to the show cause notice dated 05.03.2018 was not deposited by the appellant within 30 days from the date of the show cause notice i.e. 05.03.2018 - This reasoning of the Principal Commissioner defies all logic and cannot be countenanced at all. The Principal Commissioner expected the appellant to have deposited an amount of Rs. 3,249/- demanded through the corrigendum dated 16.03.2019 within 30 days of the show cause noticed on 05.03.2018. It clearly shows that the Principal Commissioner did not apply his mind at all while rejecting the plea of the appellant for closure of the proceedings in terms of section 28(6) of the Customs Act.

  Once the appellant had made the deposit in terms of section 28(5) of the Customs Act with interest and penalty and informed this fact to the department by a letter dated 12.04.2018, the department should have immediately taken steps to close the proceedings and should not have waited for over one year and six months to pass an order rejecting the plea of the appellant.

  The show cause notice was issued on 05.03.2018. It should, therefore, have been adjudicated upon by 04.03.2019. The personal hearing, in fact, took place on 27.09.2018. The Principal Commissioner decided the matter on 16.12.2019 much after the expiry of one year from the date the personal hearing was conducted on 27.09.2018. The corrigendum to the show cause notice was issued on 16.07.2019 much after the period within which the Principal Commissioner was required to adjudicate the show cause notice.

  Conclusion - The proceedings initiated by the show cause notice dated 05.03.2018 are deemed conclusively closed under section 28(6) of the Customs Act.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 971
  

  Levy of penalty on appellant (Customs Broker) - Whether the Customs Brokers(CB) was aware that the importer was not the Actual importers? - allegations of violation of Regulation 11(d) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013 - CB failed to provide any authorization from M/s Rishipush Trading LLP to the effect that the CB was engaged/ authorized by the actual importers for clearance of goods - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority itself has held that the appellant was unaware of the change in constitution of the imported firm till the present investigation. It is also acknowledged that at the stage of investigation a letter of authorization was produced by the appellant. The said authority letter is annexed on the record as well. The perusal reveals that the authority letter has been issued by the partners of re-constituted M/s Rishi Pushp Trading LLP, namely, Shri Hemant and Shri Dinesh and both those partners have authorized Shri Pukhraj Padiyar (the previous partner of the importing firm) to do certain acts on behalf of the firm including to deal with Customs Broker for clearance of import parcel. This perusal shatters the entire case of the department. The statement of the appellant that he received documents from Shri Pukhraj Padiyar which is alleged to be an admission of the guilt, therefore, doesn’t support the department. From the authority letter, it stands established that the documents were provided to appellant through Shri Pukhraj Padiyar being the authorized representative of the re-constituted importing firm.

  There is no denial viz-a-viz the validity of all the KYC documents including IEC code, identity of the importing firm, functioning of the firm at the declared address etc., It has also come on record that earlier partners of the importing firm were Shri Pukhraj Padiyar and Shri Rajendra Bayawat and the new partners are Shri Hemant Kumar Bhambi and Shri Dinesh Meghwanshi. Post 11.01.2018 both the new partners extended their authorization in favour of the previous partner, namely, Shri Pukhraj Padiyar only to get the Customs Broker engaged for clearance of import. These observations are sufficient to falsify the allegations of violating Regulation 11(d) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013 as already observed in the impugned order. The adjudicating authority itself has held that these allegation in his view are not proved.

  Conclusion - i) The appellant has not provided any false or incorrect intention and there appears no deliberate act on part of the appellant as is alleged by the department. ii) The impugned order of imposition of penalty upon the appellant is liable to be set aside.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 936
  

  Grant of an option to pay fine as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in lieu of confiscation of the seized goods - gold bars weighing more than the permissible limit - prohibited item or not - HELD THAT:- All the authorities below have rightly held that the petitioners are not entitled for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation by exercising the power conferred under Section 125 of the Act. Since the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners cited supra are per-incuriam as it has not considered the well settled legal position as held by the Division Bench of this Court in P. Sinnasamy [2016 (9) TMI 879 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], this Court is not bound to follow the said decision of the learned Single Judge relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also to be noted that in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to supra, goods involved were gold jewelery imported within the permissible limit, and it was not a case of gold bars weighing more than legally permissible limit as in the instant case.

  Conclusion - The petitioners are not entitled to the option to pay fine under Section 125, given the concealment of gold bars exceeding the permissible limit.

  The scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 894
  

  Apportionment of sale proceeds of goods auctioned under the Customs Act, 1962 - goods were already time expired warehouse goods - whether the goods were required to be sold under the provisions of Section 63(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 or Section 150 (2) of the Act? - HELD THAT:- In view of the law as laid down in terms of Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962, the apportionment of the sale proceeds after defraying payment of the auction caused is the first priority, the next element to be considered is the freight and other charges payable in respect of the goods sold to the carriers. There is nothing wrong in the order of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) allowing payment of freight expenses.

  The ld.Commissioner (Appeals) was, however, handicapped for want of “each and every” bills and therefore, remanded the matter to the lower authorities for examining the authenticity and applicability of the said category of other charges via provisions of Section 150(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent has challenged this remand pointing out that the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) was not vested with the power of remand. This premise of the respondent is not agreed upon. It is settled law that the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of power vested upon him is permitted to pass appropriate order as deemed fit, including the power to remand Section 128A (3) of the Customs Act, 1962.

  The law clearly provides, as may be seen from the aforesaid words of law, besides confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against in terms of Sub-Section (3)(a) of Section 128A of the Act, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) is also vested with power to remand vide Sub-section (3)(b) thereto - Even in the interregnum, the Court has given Commissioner (Appeals) the power for modifying the order including the power of remand.

  Conclusion - i) The apportionment of sale proceeds for auctioned time-expired warehouse goods must follow Section 150(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. ii) The respondent is entitled to freight charges of Rs.74,65,099/- as per Section 150(2)(b), supported by unchallenged documentary evidence. iii) The Commissioner (Appeals) validly remanded the matter concerning warehouse rent charges for detailed verification due to incomplete documentation.

  The appeal filed by the Revenue is therefore dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 893
  

  Misclaration of value of Melamine of Chinese Origin - over invoicing to evade payment of incidence of ADD - redetrmination of value based on NIDB and ICIS data - rejection for ADD assessment - alleged contravention of Rule 3 (2) of CVR, 2007 - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had resorted to under valuation and deliberately suppressed real transaction value of Melamine of Chinese origin imported by them, under third country invoices, raised by the suppliers based out of Malaysia and Hong Kong. The fact that the respondent has claimed that the price of Melamine imported by them from other countries like, Japan, Qatar, Indonesia and New Zealand, were also in the same bandwidth has not been disputed by the Department. The Revenue has not been able to controvert the arguments in respect of the market forces and chemical/technical considerations driving imports of Chinese Origin Melamine through Malaysia and Hong Kong. It is on record that the seller of Malaysia and Hong Kong of subject consignments were not related to the respondent and all payments were made to suppliers by them through Letter of Credit/through Banking Channels. There is no evidence for payment of extra sums over and above the declared values. Thus it does not come out that the invoice price was not the sole commercial consideration. The Department has not produced even a single piece of evidence to suggest any parallel invoicing to prove that the goods were misdeclared to evade ADD or the backflow of the alleged variation in prices made to overseas suppliers.

  Suspicion howsoever grave is no substitute for proof. It is settled law that published price data like Price List or a Financial Journal is no ground to justify valuation and is required to be buttressed by hard evidence in respect of contemporaneous import data at the same level of comparable commercial parlance. Notification of prices is a well accepted norm in international trade but serves as a mere guide the real test being invoice value, in the absence of any other evidence to contradict it. Mere reliance of NIDB Data for valuation of imported melamine cannot be the sole consideration for fixing and burdening the respondent for payment of ADD. Further, non-supply of hardproof of NIDB Data, also vitiates the case of the Revenue.

  The re-determination of the value of the subject goods imported under cover of 17 Bills of Entry during the relevant period and imposing ADD of Rs.1,81,87,239/- is completely unsubstantiated. In order to establish its contention of suspected over- valuation, direct evidence by way of parallel invoice or any authentic communication between the importer and the suppliers to the said effect or proof of squaring up of accounts etc. is necessary.

  Knowledge or the lack of it in respect of another case, cannot be imputed to other rival trading partner. Suppression has to be established by way of positive action and not merely presumption, specific and explicit averments are required in order to establish the same. In the present case, there is no such finding by the Department.

  Conclusion - The rejection of declared value is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary and not sanctioned in law. There is no contravention of Rule 3 (2) of CVR, 2007.

  Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 892
  

  Liability to pay custom duty on determination of ‘Fe’ content in iron ore on WMT basis or DMT basis - HELD THAT:- The said issue has been decided by this Tribunal in M/s. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar [2023 (9) TMI 827 - CESTAT KOLKATA] and Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Bhubaneswar v. M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Limited [.2024 (6) TMI 914 - CESTAT KOLKATA].

  Under identical facts and circumstances this Tribunal after considering the certificates issued by authorized inspection agency, held that export duty was payable at the rate of Rs. 50/- per MT as the Fe content of iron ore fines on WMT basis was less than 62%. Admittedly, in all the three cases the Fe content on WMT basis is less than 62%, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay custom duty at the rate of Rs. 50/- per MT. In that circumstances there are no merit in the impugned order.

  Conclusion - The Fe content on WMT basis is less than 62%, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay custom duty at the rate of Rs. 50/- per MT.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 837
  

  Detention of gold jewellery - absence of SCN and the lack of an opportunity for a personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the opinion of this Court, since no Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner in the present matter and no opportunity for personal hearing was granted, the same is not in accordance with law and would be contrary to the previous decisions of this Court including Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs [2025 (2) TMI 385 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Mr. Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2025 (3) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT].

  This Court has also pronounced several orders/judgments, following various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, wherein it has been held clearly that if the gold items seized are personal jewellery, the same would not be liable to be confiscated.

  In fact, even in the connected petitions of the family members of the Petitioner, this Court has directed for release of the confiscated articles of the Petitioner on the same grounds of non-issuance of show cause notice and absence of personal hearing to the Petitioner - the detention of Petitioner’s gold jewellery is illegal and the Order-in-Original passed in pursuance to such detention is not sustainable.

  Conclusion - The detention of the Petitioner's gold jewellery is illegal and that the Order-in-Original is unsustainable due to the lack of procedural fairness.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 836
  

  Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to initiate an investigation into the issuance of Service Exports from India Scrips (SEIS) to the petitioner by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), respondent No. 3 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner should not be aggrieved at the stage of investigation by respondent No. 2. However, at the same time, respondent No. 2 is also restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner during the course of investigation.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 835
  

  Misuse of adjournments by parties during the appellate proceedings, specifically in the context of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 - whether repeated requests for adjournments without sufficient cause could justify the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution? - HELD THAT:- In case of Ishwar lal Mali Rathod [2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT] condemning the practice of adjournments sought mechanically and allowed by the Courts/Tribunal’s Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that 'considering the fact that in the present case ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019 and twice the orders were passed granting time for cross examination as a last chance and that too at one point of time even a cost was also imposed and even thereafter also when lastly the High Court passed an order with extending the time it was specifically mentioned that no further time shall be extended and/or granted still the petitioner – defendant never availed of the liberty and the grace shown. In fact it can be said that the petitioner – defendant misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court.'

  Conclusion - There are no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided.

  The Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 834
  

  Valuation - inclusion of floating crane charges incurred for unloading coal from mother vessels to barges in the assessable value as part of transportation costs under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Loading/unloading expenses from mother ship to barge are part of cost of transportation and includible in assessable value post 2007 under new Section 14 based on actual transaction value - difference of opinion - majority order - HELD THAT:- It is found that in the present case in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the floating crane charges can be termed has transportation cost or not, the same would require to go into factual details.

  It is also found that in WIPRO LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & OTHERS [2015 (4) TMI 643 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court has viewed that the amendment per se to Section 14 (1) on its own is not bringing in any material change except for the mode of arriving at the value which was based on ‘deemed value’ earlier and change to ‘transportation value’ w.e.f 10.10.2007. A harmonious reading of the Section 14 (1) prior to 2007, subsequent to 2007, read with Valuation Rules, 2007, clarifies this. Therefore, simply based on the amended provision of Section 14 (1) alone, the matter cannot be decided. The Hon’ble Member (Judicial) has gone into various factual details gone into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ISPAT INDUSTRIES [2006 (9) TMI 181 - SUPREME COURT], which he has recorded and has rightly felt that they are required to be checked even in the present case.

  The Hon’ble Member (Judicial) is agreed upon and it is held that the matter is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to undertake necessary verification of the points highlighted by him at Para 19 (a) to (f) and as per the directions given by him at Para 20 and Para 21 of the Interim Order.

  Conclusion - The question as to whether any further addition to CIF value for transportation charges is warranted or not, needs elaborate discussions and findings on various aspects.

  The matter is to be placed before the regular Division Bench to pass necessary order.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 833
  

  Absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - imported LED luminaries - BIS No. and standard marks were not printed/embossed on the goods, but were printed on the package - HELD THAT:- The only reason for challenging the impugned order is that BIS Mark was not affixed at the time of importation as per MEITY Order, but is found printed on the packets of goods in question.

  Conclusion - The goods are not liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) and should be released for home consumption. The penalties and redemption fines imposed by the lower authority are set aside.

  Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 832
  

  Classification of imported goods - L-Glutamine with berries - to be classified under CTH 2922 4990 or under CTH 2106 9099? - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) totally relied upon the source material contained in Wikipedia without discussing other materials as alleged in the show-cause notice and discussed by the adjudicating authority. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (1) TMI 700 - SUPREME COURT], recording a note of caution on reliance of materials in Wikipedia observed that 'despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowd-sourced and user-generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information as has been noted by this court on previous occasions also.'

  No doubt Wikipedia can be considered as one of the source material for deciding the classification of the impugned product but it cannot be sole basis for arriving at the correct classification of the impugned goods, that too when it is not alleged in the notice. In these premises, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the issue afresh on the basis of materials as alleged in the show-cause notice and discussed by the adjudicating authority in classifying the product.

  Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

1 ....202122232425262728........ 2028