Here’s a Customs Duty weekly flashback from 04 To 10 January 2026.
Supreme Court
Aluminium Mushroom Racks Are Taxable ‘Structures’, Not Customs Duty Free Parts of Agricultural Machinery: Supreme Court
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Versus M/S Welkin Foods
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5531 OF 2025
The Supreme Court has held that aluminium shelving used in mushroom cultivation cannot be classified as “parts of agricultural machinery” and must instead be treated as aluminium structures liable to customs duty.
Supreme Court Quashes Customs Duty on Electricity Supplied from SEZ to DTA; Allows Adani Power’s Appeal
Case Title: ADANI POWER LTD. & ANR Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24729/2019)
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal filed by Adani Power Ltd., setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s judgment dated June 28, 2019, and held that the levy of customs duty on electricity cleared from an SEZ to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) was without authority of law.
Madras High Court
Chennai Customs Commissioner To Release MSME Importer’s Sanitary Napkins, Panty Liners Subject To Deposit Of Rs. 15 Lakhs: Madras HC
Case Title: Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – II (Import)
Case No.: W.P.No.50475 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II (Import), to release consignments of sanitary napkins and panty liners imported by an MSME importer, subject to a monetary deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs, to enable sale before the statutory deadline of December 31, 2025.
Under-Valuation of Imported Goods Justifies Confiscation, Penalty Even If Duty Is Paid Later: Madras HC
Case Title: M/s. Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port Import, Chennai)
Case No.: C.M.A.No. 1069 of 2018
The Madras High Court has ruled that acceptance of enhanced valuation and subsequent payment of customs duty does not absolve an importer from confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty if the original declaration in the Bill of Entry was incorrect.
CESTAT Exceeded Jurisdiction by Ordering Absolute Confiscation Despite Customs Not Challenging Re-Export Relief: Madras HC
Case Title: M/s.Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. Versus CESTAT
Case No.: CMA.No. 836 of 2018
The Madras High Court has held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering absolute confiscation of imported goods when the Customs Department itself had not challenged the adjudicating authority’s decision permitting re-export on payment of redemption fine.
DRI To Expedited Hearing on Seizure of ‘Vital Wheat Gluten’ Imported Under Duty-Free Authorisation: Madras HC
Case Title: M/s Bhansali Chematics Private Limited Versus The Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence
Case No.: WP No. 46271 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to grant a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order within a strict timeline in a dispute concerning the seizure of imported “vital wheat gluten” claimed to be covered under a Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) permitting duty-free import of wheat flour.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Export Duty Exemption Can’t Be Denied for Exports Without Letters of Credit of Parboiled Rice: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: M/s Eastman International Versus UOI
Case No.: WPT No. 228 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that exporters who do not conduct trade through Letters of Credit (LoCs) cannot be denied exemption from export duty merely for non-fulfilment of LoC-related conditions, when such exporters have otherwise complied with the substantive requirements and realised export proceeds.
Lower Court
Bail Can’t Be Cancelled Mechanically: Panvel Sessions Court Rejects DRI Plea in Alleged Import of Pakistan-Origin Dry Dates Case
Case Title: DRI Vs. Deepak Sewani
Case No.: Cri.M.A. No.86/2025
The Additional Sessions Court at Panvel has rejected an application filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused trader in a case involving the alleged import of Pakistan-origin dry dates routed through the UAE, holding that bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner in the absence of supervening circumstances.
CESTAT
Duty Demand on 100% EOU for Failure to Achieve Positive NFE Under EXIM Policy Must Be Recomputed as Per Exemption Notifications: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Diehard Dies Pvt Ltd Versus Customs Commissioner
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 21317 of 2015
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad Bench, has held that while a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) is liable to pay customs and excise duty for failure to achieve positive Net Foreign Exchange (NFE) under the EXIM Policy, the duty demand must be strictly recomputed in accordance with the mechanism prescribed under the EOU exemption notifications.
Customs Dept. Illegally Relied On Statements Recorded U/s 108 Of Customs Act Without Following Mandatory Procedure U/s 138B: CESTAT
Case Title: BEN Versus Customs Commissioner
Case No.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51963 OF 2022
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench, has quashed the confiscation of export goods worth ₹34.01 crore and penalties imposed, holding that the Customs authorities illegally relied on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act without following the mandatory procedure under Section 138B.
Router Components Are ‘Parts’, Not Network Interface Cards; CESTAT Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Bharti Airtel
Case Title: Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs
Case No.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50033 OF 2024
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a major customs duty demand against Bharti Airtel Limited, ruling that key components of Juniper routers imported by the telecom major are “parts of routers” and not independent “network interface cards” (NICs).
Statements Given to Customs Officers Are Not Admissible Unless Tested in Cross-Examination: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Sartaj International Versus Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 55550 OF 2023
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that statements given to customs officers are not admissible unless tested in cross-examination.
No Unjust Enrichment If Duty Was Not Recovered from Buyers: CESTAT Allows Refund to Importer
Case Title: Lord Image Versus Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 50283 of 2022
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the refund claim of the importer and held that no unjust enrichment if duty was not recovered from buyers.
Mining Is ‘Permissible Operation’ Under MOOWR, Quashes Cancellation of Private Bonded Warehouse Licences: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51041 OF 2025
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside the cancellation of private bonded warehouse licences and Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse (MOOWR) permissions granted to a mining contractor, holding that mining activities qualify as “other operations” under Section 65 of the Customs Act and are permissible under the MOOWR, 2019 framework.
CESTAT Upholds Confiscation, Penalty in Fabric Mis-Declaration Case; Rejects Plea of Coerced Acceptance
Case Title: M/s Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner
Case No.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51104 OF 2022
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has dismissed an appeal filed by a textile importer challenging confiscation of goods, enhancement of value, and imposition of penalty, holding that clear mis-declaration of the nature and composition of imported fabric justified rejection of the declared value and consequent penal action.
No Confiscation or Penalty Without Proof of Unlicensed Clearance: CESTAT Rejects DRI’s Assumptions in Marble Imports
Case Title: Marble City India Limited Vs New Delhi
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 50093 Of 2025
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside massive penalties imposed on Marble City India Ltd, its director, and several logistics and forwarding companies in a long-running dispute over alleged excess import of restricted rough marble, holding that the Revenue proceeded on assumptions without concrete evidence and ignored the realities of the customs clearance process.
Mis-declaration of Imported Fabric Justifies Re-classification, Confiscation, Penalties: CESTAT
Case Title: Garg Enterprises Vs New Delhi (ICD TKD)
Case No.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52329 OF 2019
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that mis-declaration of imported fabric justifies re-classification, confiscation, and penalties.
Re-Import Duty Exemption Can’t Be Denied Solely for Lack of ‘Marks and Numbers’ When Identity of Goods Is Proven: CESTAT
Case Title: Alliance Polysacks Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
Case No.: C/50400/2021
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that re-import duty exemption can’t be denied solely for lack of ‘marks and numbers’ when identity of goods is proven.
Chilli Seeds for Sowing Not ‘Spices’: CESTAT Rejects Customs Demand
Case Title: Nunhems India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Customs-New Delhi
Case No.: C/50492/2017
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has ruled that chemically treated chilli seeds imported exclusively for sowing purposes cannot be classified as spices under Chapter 9 of the Customs Tariff, setting aside a long-standing customs demand and penalties raised against the importer.
Pressure Relief Valves Used In Common Rail Fuel Injection Systems Classifiable As “Safety Or Relief Valves” Under Customs Tariff Item 8481 40 00: CESTAT
Case Title: SENIOR INDIA PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS-NEW DELHI (ACC IMPORT)
Case No.: C/52091/2022
The Customs Act, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench, has held that pressure relief valves used in common rail fuel injection systems are classifiable as “safety or relief valves” under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8481 40 00, and not as parts of diesel engines under CTI 8409 99 41.
Read More: Service Tax Weekly Flashback: 04 To 10 January 2026
