The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a duty demand of Rs. 2.75 crore along with penalties, holding that the department failed to substantiate allegations of misdeclaration of the country of origin of imported goods. 

The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical  Member) found that the primary evidence—the Country of Origin Certificate—clearly supported the importer’s claim. However, the authorities had neither verified nor investigated the authenticity of this crucial document. Instead, reliance was placed on statements and electronic evidence such as emails and WhatsApp chats to allege collusion and misdeclaration. 

The dispute arose from an Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, wherein the department rejected the importer’s declaration that the ammonium nitrate consignments originated from Uzbekistan and instead treated Iran as the country of origin. Based on this, anti-dumping duty (ADD) was levied, along with interest, confiscation of goods, redemption fine of Rs. 1 crore, and penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act. 

The importer contended that the goods were indeed of Uzbekistan origin and were transported via Iran due to geographical constraints, as Uzbekistan is a landlocked country. Valid Country of Origin Certificates were submitted along with supporting documents such as purchase orders, invoices, and transport records to substantiate the claim. 

The Tribunal held that such electronic evidence did not satisfy the mandatory requirements under Section 138C of the Customs Act and lacked proper authentication. It further observed that the statements relied upon by the department were not corroborated by independent evidence and, therefore, could not form the basis for confirming duty demand. 

The Bench noted procedural lapses, including denial of cross-examination of key witnesses, which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. It also pointed out that no effort was made by the authorities to conduct any scientific analysis of the goods or to disprove the documentary evidence furnished by the importer. 

Holding that the department’s case was based on presumptions rather than legally sustainable evidence, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

Case Details

Case Title: Keltech Energies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I 

Citation: JURISHOUR-1067-CES-2026(MUM) 

Case No.: Customs Appeal No.85272 of 2025

Date: 30.04.2026

Counsel For  Appellant: Ashwini Kumar

Counsel For Respondent: Deepak Sharma, Authorised Representative

Read More: Job Work Manufacturing Can’t Be Taxed as ‘Renting of Immovable Property’: ITAT