Rajasthan High Court Says Customs Cannot Recover Excess Drawback Without Reassessment

The Rajasthan High Court on 12 August held that Customs authorities cannot directly invoke Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to recover alleged excess drawback without first reassessing the exporter's self-assessment under Section 17 of the Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices Munnuri Laxman and Sangeeta Sharma allowed writ petitions filed by Bhati & Company and Latiyal Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. and granted the Customs authorities liberty to proceed under Sections 17 and 18 of the...

Supreme Court Holds Port Trust Liable For Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods After Custodian Approval

The Supreme Court on 25 August upheld the validity of a notification approving the Mumbai Port Trust as a custodian under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, empowers the Commissioner of Customs to approve a person or entity as custodian of imported goods pending their clearance.A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manmohan held that the Commissioner of Customs was justified in approving the Trust as a custodian, and set aside the Bombay High Court's finding that the Commissioner...

12% Interest Payable On Redemption Fine Deposits From Date Of Deposit: CESTAT Chandigarh

The Chandigarh Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 August held that interest at 12% per annum is payable on redemption fine amounts deposited by an importer for securing release of goods, from the date of deposit until the date of actual refund, holding that such interest is compensatory in nature. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg allowed two appeals filed by Hindustan Distributors seeking interest on refunds of Rs. 18 lakh and Rs. 27 lakh representing...

Six-Month Limit Does Not Apply To Currency Seized As Evidence Under Customs Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 10 August held that the six-month time limit under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for issuing a show-cause notice does not apply to Indian currency treated as a “thing” under Section 110(3) when Customs officers retain it as material evidence during an investigation. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed a writ appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs against an order directing the release of Rs. 21.55 lakh recovered from...

Customs Act | CESTAT Chennai Holds S.117 Penalty Cannot Be Imposed Without Finding Of Contravention

The CESTAT, Chennai has set aside the ₹4 lakh penalty imposed on Dahnay Logistics Pvt. Ltd. under Section 117 of the Customs Act, finding that there was no established contravention warranting penalty.A Bench comprising Ajayan T.V., Member (Judicial) found that 100% examination of the cargo had revealed nothing objectionable and that the documents furnished by Dahnay Logistics were not found wanting.The Tribunal held that Section 117 could not be invoked mechanically and that a penalty required...

Criminal Court Cannot Order Release Of Seized Goods Without Customs Cognizance: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on 13 August held that a regular criminal court cannot exercise powers under the general criminal law to release goods seized under the Customs Act when no cognizance of a Customs offence has been taken. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed a criminal petition filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Dimapur Regional Unit, challenging the 12 March 2026 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur. The order had...

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Advance Ruling On Kitchen Exhaust Hoods In Halton India's Case

The Karnataka High Court on 6 August held that the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings must examine material produced by an importer to determine whether kitchen exhaust hoods contain fans before deciding their tariff classification. A Division Bench comprising Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao set aside the Authority's order dated 25 March 2026 after finding that material submitted by Halton India Pvt. Ltd. to establish that its imported exhaust hoods contain fans had not been...

Separately Imported Laptop LCD Panels Are Flat Panel Displays, Not Computer Parts: CESTAT Delhi

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has held that separately imported laptop LCD panels are classifiable as flat panel display modules, rather than as parts or accessories of computers. The tribunal ruled that their intended use in laptops could not determine their classification when the goods retained their identity as separately presented display modules at the time of import.“The appellant has impressed upon his goods to be the Laptop monitors which...

Delhi High Court Declines Common Adjudication Of Three Customs SCNs Despite Overlapping Evidence

The Delhi High Court has refused to order common adjudication of three show cause notices arising out of a single Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation, holding that although there was substantial overlap in the material relied upon by the Department, the notices had distinct subject matters and arose at different stages of the alleged transactions.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain also declined to entertain challenges to the customs adjudication...

Equipment Returned From Free Trade Warehousing Zone Under Fresh Contract Is 'Fresh Import', Not Re-Import: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the return of petroleum operations equipment from a Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) pursuant to a fresh contract and a subsequent Essentiality Certificate (EC) constitutes a fresh import and not a re-import.The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that merely because the equipment was physically the same as that which had earlier been imported into India, it could not be treated as a re-import. “A...

Litigant Cannot Blame Counsel For 968-Day Delay In Customs Appeal Without Explaining Inaction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a litigant cannot seek condonation of an inordinate delay by merely blaming their counsel for failing to communicate an order, especially when the litigant themselves remained inactive and made no enquiry about the outcome of the proceedings for nearly three years.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed three customs appeals challenging CESTAT 's refusal to condone a delay of approximately 968 days in filing appeals against...

Export Duty Recovery Premature Before Finalisation Of Provisional Assessment: CESTAT Chandigarh

The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹26.96 lakh export duty demand against S.K. Brothers. The court held that duty recovery proceedings cannot be initiated before a provisional assessment is finalised.The bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar found that the rice consignments were allowed to be exported on provisional assessment while samples were being tested to determine the nature of...