Custom Duty Meaning, Calculators, Rules, exemptions Articles Notification, Circulars, Recent Changes, Duty Drawback Rates, Custom Rates, Anti-Dumping Duty
Custom Duty : Anti-dumping duty protects local manufacturers from unfairly cheap imports that can damage domestic markets. The article explains ...
Custom Duty : The new customs notifications standardize the effective import duty on gold and silver bullion at 15% through revised BCD, SWS, an...
Custom Duty : The article argues that the sharp increase in gold import duty was triggered by pressure on India’s forex reserves, rising oil p...
Custom Duty : Emergency customs relaxations introduced during the maritime crisis expire on 30 April 2026, leaving exporters uncertain. The fram...
Custom Duty : Highlights how the EMI Scheme allows businesses to defer duty payments, easing working capital pressure while improving operationa...
Custom Duty : The India–Oman Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement became operational on 1 June 2026 after completion of required proce...
Custom Duty : The reform removes value restrictions on courier exports, enabling higher-value shipments. It aims to boost e-commerce exports and...
Custom Duty : CBIC has allowed Eligible Manufacturer Importers to avail deferred payment of customs duty from 1 April 2026. The circular outline...
Custom Duty : The CBI has registered a bribery case against three Customs officials accused of taking illegal gratification to release seized go...
Custom Duty : The new rules enhance duty-free allowances and introduce digital declarations. The overhaul aims to speed up clearance and improve...
Custom Duty : The Court ruled that confiscation proceedings before Customs Authorities do not amount to prosecution before a judicial tribunal. ...
Custom Duty : Where an EPCG licence holder becomes incapable of fulfilling export obligations due to unavoidable circumstances such as SARFAESI ...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Chennai held that unsigned invoices, unauthenticated e-mails, and uncorroborated statements were insufficient to reject tra...
Custom Duty : The Tribunal held that a medicine containing Ergotamine was merely a preparation and not “Ergotamine and its salts” under Sche...
Custom Duty : CESTAT examined whether Bluetooth headsets should be treated as communication devices or ordinary headphones. It held that devices...
Custom Duty : The Central Government has amended Notification No. 62/2022-Customs to prescribe a 0% Basic Customs Duty on all goods falling unde...
Custom Duty : CBIC has designated a common adjudicating authority to decide several customs show cause notices issued by different commissionera...
Custom Duty : CBIC exercised its powers under the Customs Act, 1962 to appoint a common adjudicating authority for two customs proceedings invol...
Custom Duty : Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority in the case of M/s. Hewlett Packard Enterprise India Private Limited, (IEC: 071500719...
Custom Duty : CBIC has directed Customs field formations not to seek FTP clarifications directly from DGFT. The new mechanism aims to ensure con...
Presenting the General Budget 2011-12 here today, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Finance Minister said that to quicken the clearance of the cargo by Customs authorities and further modernize the customs administration, it has been proposed to introduce self-assessment in Customs. Under this scheme, the importers and exporters will themselves asses their duty liabilities while filing their declarations in the EDI system. The department will verify such assessments on a selective system driven basis.
It was held that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside on the short ground that while deciding the case, the Tribunal has ignored the specific directions issued by this Court, vide order dated 30th August, 2001. It is evident from the impugned order, in particular from paras 15 and 16 that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts obtaining in the present case in their correct perspective, which has resulted in vitiating its decision on the question of leviability of import duty. Although, from para 14 of the impugned order it is evident that the Tribunal was conscious of the direction of this Court that it was required to first record the correct facts and then in the factual perspective locate and apply the relevant law, yet in the very next paragraph it proceeds to hold that when it is accepted that Notification No. 118/59-Cus. did not exist at the time of clearance of the vessel from the ship yard, the persistent plea that the ship was manufactured in a warehouse located in India and therefore, it attracted excise duty alone need not be considered at all. In our opinion, in light of the decision and directions of this Court in C.A. 1998 of 2000, judicial discipline obliged the Tribunal to examine the entire legal issue after ascertaining the foundational facts, regardless of its earlier view in the matter. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
Notification No.12/ 2011-Customs- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendment, in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.39/96-Customs, dated the 23rd July, 1996, G.S.R. 291(E), dated the 23rd July, 1996, namely:-
Your kind attention is invited to the Circular No.27/2010-Customs, dated 13.08.2010 regarding procedure on refund of 4% CVD (SAD). The above Circular provides the facility of manual filing of Bill of Entry for utilizing the amount of re-credited 4% CVD (SAD) refunds for payment of duty in case of re-credited DEPB / Reward Scheme scrips upto 30.12.2010. However several representations have been received from trade and industry to extend the time upto 30th June, 2011 for using re-credited 4% CVD (SAD) amount in DEPB as they have not been able to utilize the re-credited DEPB / Reward Scheme scrips within the stipulated time.
Circular No. 10 /2011- Customs – Attention is invited to Board’s Circular No 41/2007-Customs dated 29-10-2007 on the above subject. In the said Circular, it was provided that the right holders may furnish a General Bond without security to the Commissioner of Customs prior to the grant of registration, undertaking to execute consignment specific Bonds with the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs at the port of interdiction within three days from the date of interdiction of any allegedly infringing goods. This arrangement was prescribed considering the fact that at the time of registration but prior to importation, it may be difficult to ascertain and fix the Bond amount corresponding to the value of suspected infringing goods that are to be imported. Further, this would lock in right holders’ money in the form of security.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 76 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.208/1977-Customs, dated the 1st October, 1977, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), dated the 1st October, 1977, namely:-
Your Kind attention is invited to Board’s Circular No.5/2011-Customs dated 17.1.2011 wherein it was informed that, since BCCI has ceased to be a National Sports Federation or Apex Body for the game of Cricket in India, BCCI would not be eligible for the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 or any other Customs notification. For the purpose of removal of doubts, it is clarified that, the ineligibility indicated therein, of BCCI or any one certified by BCCI, applies wherever BCCI claims a notification benefit by virtue of being National Sports Federation / Apex Body controlling the game of Cricket.
A case was registered against five persons for commission of offences punishable U/s 120-B r/w 420 IPC, Sec. 132 and 135 of Customs Act, 1962 and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of joint surprise check condu
From a conjoint reading of Sections 2(34) and 28 of the Act, it is manifest that only such a customs officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and re-assessment of duty in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been affected, by either the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2(34) of the Act is competent to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act. Any other reading of Section 28 would render the provisions of Section 2(34) of the Act otiose in as much as the test contemplated under Section 2(34) of the Act is that of specific conferment of such functions.
“Ill gotten gains” are not the ill-ones if caused due to the interpretations of law. To survive in the cut-throat competition, the EOUs were allowed to clear the goods in Domestic Tariff Area. Being allowed the benefits like duty free import of input
