Customs | Drawback Cannot Be Denied On Grounds Of Alleged Forgery By Foreign Buyer Once Goods Are Exported: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that drawback cannot be denied on the grounds of alleged forgery by a foreign buyer after goods are exported under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 1995. The single bench consists of (Judicial Member) opined that any forgery, if revealed during a further investigation being committed by the Russian company vis-a-vis the Landing certificate in the light of Drawback...

Customs Act | Electronic Evidence From Unsealed CPU Without Certificate U/S 139C Cannot Form Basis Of Assessment: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that electronic evidence from an unsealed CPU without any Section 139C certificate under the Customs Act cannot form the basis of assessment. Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the computer/ CPU was not sealed at the time of panchnama and was lying with the investigating agency for 47 days, after which it was first examined and then sealed,...

Customs | Confiscation, Penalty & Fine Can't Be Imposed On IGST Demand Arising From Breach Of Pre-Import Condition: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that confiscation, penalty & fine cannot be imposed on IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) demand arising from breach of pre-import condition under Customs Act. Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) opined that the IGST demand arose because of the breach of the pre-import condition. Although IGST is payable for such a breach, no confiscation or penalty can be ...

Differential Duty Paid For Provisional Release Not Pre-Deposit; Refund Interest Payable Only At 6% U/S 27A Customs Act: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the differential duty paid for provisional release is not a pre-deposit. Hence, refund interest payable only at 6% U/S 27A Customs Act, not 12% U/S 35FF Central Excise Act. Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) opined that all those goods were ordered to be released as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, at the assessee's own request for provisional release of the goods. This ...

Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Seeking Rs 93 Lakh Duty On Lulu Malls' Imported Trampolines

The Supreme Court recently (October 31) dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging the classification and valuation of imported amusement equipment, including trampolines, by Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd.A bench of Justices Pankaj Mittal and Prasanna B Varale held that there was no error in the classification of the trampolines and other equipment under the category of gymnastics equipment. The bench observed, “we do not find any infirmity in the...

Customs | AIFTA Exemption Cannot Be Denied Without Verifying Certificate Of Origin: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the AIFTA (ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement) exemption cannot be denied without verifying the certificate of origin. Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) noted that there is no allegation, let alone ascertainment, that the 'certificate of origin' corresponding to each of the impugned consignments is not authentic or not issued by the competent authority. There is...

Customs | FOB Value Determined Between Parties Protected By Privity Of Contract; Cannot Be Modified By Stranger: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the FOB (Free On Board) value determined between the parties is protected by privity of contract, and it cannot be modified by a stranger to the contract. Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) opined that FOB value is the product of negotiations and deliberations between the parties to the contract, which value cannot be modified by any stranger to...

Customs | Royalty For Technical Know-How Not 'Condition Of Sale' Even If Included In Value Of Imported Goods: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that royalty paid for technical know-how is not a 'condition of sale' merely because it is included in the value of imported goods. Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemembika R. Priya (Technical Member) opined that both the Technical Agreements relate to transfer of technical know-how, amongst others, in the form of design sheets detailing manufacturing methods and specifications of raw...

Customs Act | Excel Sheet Recovered From Assessee's Email Can Be Relied Upon For Valuation Even Without S.138C Certificate: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an Excel sheet recovered from the email account of the assessee can be relied upon to determine the value of imported goods, even without a certificate under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 would apply if the information is printed from a computer, and the certificate should certify that the computer was being used for the purpose of business...

Customs Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Issue Directions Under GST Law: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that Customs authorities have no jurisdiction to issue directions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law. The Court struck down a February 2021 public notice issued by the Chennai Customs that sought to regulate the GST treatment on auctioned cargo.A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruled that such powers lie exclusively with authorities designated under the GST Act."It is not known as to where the 1st respondent gets the power and jurisdiction to...

Customs Housing Agent Can Be Made Liable For Wrongdoings Of Employees, Must Exercise Due Diligence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a Customs Housing Agent is responsible for the actions of its employees and it must exercise due diligence in supervising their activities.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further held that a CHA may be held accountable for the wrongdoings of its employee but, the punishment in that regard has to be proportionate.The observations come in an appeal preferred by a CHA against revocation of its license over misdeclaration in...

Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations | 'Offence Report Need Not Be Penal'; 90-Day Period Begins Only Upon Receipt Of Report: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that the offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Also, it stated that the 90-day limitation period begins only upon receipt of the offence report.The bench stated that, "the offence report must be received by the office of the licensing authority, and the limitation period will start running only from the date of its receipt. Even if the licensing authority can be attributed...