The CESTAT Mumbai ruled that confiscation, fine, and penalty cannot be imposed on IGST demand arising from breach of pre-import conditions under the Advance Authorization Scheme.
CESTAT Chennai held that Enriched Omega 3 Fatty Acid (Fish Oil – Ethyl Ester) and Enriched Omega 3 Fatty Acid-Powder (Fish Oil – Ethyl Ester-Powder) are classifiable under CETH 1516 1000 and not under CETH 3824 9090 as contested by department.
The Tribunal ruled that refund limitation under Section 27 does not apply to bank guarantees encashed during pending appeals and ordered customs to refund the encashed amount.
The issue was whether customs could deny AIFTA duty exemption for ten consignments based only on irregularities found in a separate, single import. The CESTAT set aside the duty demand, holding that the exemption cannot be denied without a finding on the authenticity or validity of the individual Certificate of Origin (COO).
The CESTAT Delhi ruled that the differential duty paid by Vortex Rubber for provisional release of seized goods is considered customs duty, not a pre-deposit under Section 35FF. This classification affects the applicable interest provisions for delayed refunds.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside a ₹1 lakh penalty on a Custom House Agent (CHA), ruling that mere classification disputes are not grounds for confiscation or penalty.
An Excel sheet recovered from the email account of assessee can be relied upon to determine the value of imported goods, even without a certificate under Section 138C as Section 138C applies only when the document was printed or produced from a computer other than that of the assessee.
Since common input services were used for both taxable output and trading, assessee was required to reverse proportionate credit attributable to trading along with interest. Penalty under Rule 15(3) to be confined to proportionate irregular credit finally determined.
CESTAT Chennai held that ‘wheel loaders’ are classifiable as ‘front-end shovel loaders’ and hence are covered under Customs Tariff Heading 8429 5100. However, demand for only normal period is sustained and demand for extended period is set aside.
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) could not be denied merely because commercial invoices did not carry the endorsement required under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, when all other substantive requirements were satisfied.
