Customs Act, 1962

India Organic Chemicals Ltd. imported a diesel engine set for Rs 8,50,740 and was assessed additional duty at 8 % ad valorem under Customs Tariff Item 68. The company claimed a refund, arguing that the set comprised a diesel engine and an alternator and that each component should be assessed separately for additional d…

M/s Hotel Ashoka, a dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, sold goods at its duty‑free shop in Bengaluru International Airport before the goods crossed the customs frontiers of India. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes assessed Rs. 4,20,70,900 as sales tax,…

The appellant was found with 200 gold biscuits concealed in his house and gave a written confession to Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which he later retracted. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether such a statement, recorded before the appellant became an accused, was admissible under S…

Sandip Agarwal, director of a company that enjoyed duty‑free import benefits under the DEEC scheme, was found to have diverted the imported goods to the domestic market, constituting smuggling. He was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (C…

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories imported diagnostic equipment (BTS models) and classified them as "auto analysers" under the Customs Tariff. Customs seized the goods, alleging they were merely "photometers" and demanded duty, confiscation, and penalties under Sections 111(m), 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act. The Commission…

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, sought to enforce a refund order dated 06‑06‑1989 in favour of M/s Dalmiacement (Bharat) Ltd. The refund had not been paid, leading to contempt proceedings and a High Court order directing the Assistant Commissioner to examine the claim under the amended Section 11B, which…

Mangalore Refineries & Petrochemicals Ltd imported crude oil in 144 voyages between 1996 and 1998. The Revenue, via a show‑cause notice, demanded customs duty on the basis of the quantity shown in the bills of lading, arguing that the duty was now ad valorem and therefore should be calculated on the invoice price. The …

Mis Oblum Electrical Industries, a manufacturer of lightning arrestors, imported Crystar beams as kiln furniture and claimed duty‑free clearance under Customs Notification No. 210/82 and No. 116/88. The Additional Collector of Customs and the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the beams were …

RibTapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. imported 27 knitting machines in 1972 under a licence. Customs authorities held the machines were reconditioned and that the declared price (Rs. 77,441) was far below the actual value (Rs. 2,98,359). The Collector of Customs found the company in breach of sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Cus…

The State of Gujarat appealed against the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal and the High Court, which had allowed M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd. to exclude Value Added Tax (VAT) and the value of purchases on which no tax credit was claimed from its taxable turnover of purchases under Section 11(3)(b) of the Gujarat Value Added …

The Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre imported a teletherapy unit under a duty‑free exemption granted by Notification No. 64/88, which required the hospital to provide free treatment to at least 40 % of outdoor patients, free treatment to all indoor patients whose family income was below Rs 500 and to reserve 10 % of …

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), which authorises preventive detention of persons whose activities are prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange. They argu…

The Gujarat Cancer Society imported MRI and lithotripsy machines under a customs duty exemption certificate that required the equipment to be used by the "actual user". The Customs Collector later held the society liable for duty but, considering its charitable purpose, imposed only a token fine and did not prosecute. …

ELPRO International Ltd., a manufacturer of X‑ray components, obtained a final order from a three‑member bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) which was later rectified by another three‑member bench. Subsequent applications for further rectification were heard by a two‑member bench …

Raja Radio Co imported Class‑E high‑temperature resisting material consisting of presspahn paper laminated with polyester film and paid customs duty under heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, together with counter‑vailing duty under tariff item 17(2). The company later claimed a refund, arguing that the go…

The petitioner, Chuharmal, filed an income‑tax return for AY 1974‑75 showing a total income of Rs 3,113. During a customs search in May 1973, 565 foreign watches valued at Rs 87,455 were seized from his bedroom. The Income‑Tax Officer issued notices under s.69A of the Income Tax Act to treat the value of the watches as…

In 1973 the Customs authorities seized 565 foreign wrist watches from the petitioner’s residence and issued a show‑cause notice under section 124 of the Customs Act. The Collector later extended the statutory six‑month period for issuing the notice under the proviso to section 110(2) and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,00,00…

The Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of a drilling rig owned by Mis Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. on the ground that the rig had been brought into Indian territorial waters for repairs without filing a bill of entry, was not declared under Section 46 and was therefore imported for home consumption. The…

Mis. J.K. Corporation Ltd. entered into a two‑part collaboration agreement with Korean firms Samsung and Cheil for licence, know‑how (Part A) and plant‑machinery (Part B) to set up a polyester yarn plant. The company imported the machinery and paid a US$14 lakh licence/know‑how fee after importation. The issue before t…

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, sought to compound an offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Compounding Authority fixed the compounding amount at Rs 10 lakh, which the petitioner challenged as exceeding the permissible limit, arguing that the amount should be limited to 20 % of the market v…

Mis. Modi Rubber Ltd. imported styrene‑butadiene latex and claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 82/86 (as amended) which exempts raw rubber and latex. Clause IA of the notification excludes "styrene butadiene rubber and oil‑extended styrene butadiene rubber". The Customs authority denied the exemp…

M/s L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) producing cut flowers, imported inputs duty‑free under Notification No. 126/94-Cus but sold a portion of its produce in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) without the required approval of the Development Commissioner and without meeting the net foreign‑ex…

Coal India Ltd., through its subsidiary Central Coalfields Ltd., imported spare parts for P&H shovels and was required to pay an additional 8% of the FOB value to the Indian agent Voltas Ltd. as engineering and technical service fees. The customs authorities held that these fees were part of the assessable value under …

The exporter, Mis Siddachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., claimed a duty drawback on garments exported at declared FOB values of Rs. 390‑417 per piece, but the customs authorities alleged the values were inflated and seized the goods. A market valuation report from M/s Skipper International, later retracted, was used by the rev…

Gurcharan Singh, a customs officer, along with others, created fictitious firms to claim a duty drawback of Rs 1.04 crore for allegedly exported readymade garments that were over‑invoiced and of inferior quality. A complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act led to cognizance by a magistrate; the appellant’…

V.C. Mohan was charged under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act for misdeclaration of a Bill of Entry, arrested, and later released on bail. After the investigation, the Customs Department issued a show‑cause notice under Section 124 and the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Commission, which o…

The respondent, Biecco Lawrie Ltd., imported 5,273.156 MT of Superior Kerosene Oil in May 1998, paid full duty and obtained clearance for home consumption under Section 46. Because the oil was highly combustible, it was stored in a private warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act. After the 1998‑99 budget raised t…