#Customs Act

The tribunal ruled that customs duty can only be recovered from the actual importer of goods, not from directors of companies that sold title documents on the high seas. This bars revenue from issuing joint several demands against high sea sellers' directors, protecting corporate officers from liability for obligations that legally belong solely to the importer.

CESTAT Kolkata set aside confiscation of unmarked gold seized from a domestic passenger, ruling revenue must first prove foreign origin before Section 123's reverse burden applies. The tribunal held that possession of unmarked gold on a domestic flight alone cannot trigger the smuggling presumption without foundational evidence of foreign source.

The Bombay High Court held that import date under FTP is shipment date not arrival upholding Ganesh Das Bhojraj principle and that FTP restrictions apply only to goods dispatched after notification benefiting importers whose goods arrived before notice.

Calcutta HC held Customs officers may sample imported food under Section 144 for tariff classification even with food safety concerns, letting revenue probe duty evasion without waiting for separate food safety clearance.

CESTAT held that adjusting a SAD refund against a sub-judice duty drawback demand is impermissible under Section 142 of the Customs Act, ordering repayment of ₹17,96,125 with interest under Section 11BB and stating that recovery must await adjudication.

The CESTAT Chennai bench held that the limitation period for a refund claim under Section 27(1B)(c) Customs Act starts from communication of the order, not its mere passage. This clarifies refund timing for importers and exporters after provisional assessments, preventing premature time-bar rejections.

Customs officials must possess a reasonable belief before seizing goods, and the onus under Sec 123 cannot be shifted to the accused without proper justification. This ruling curtails arbitrary confiscation of gold and safeguards importers from unjust seizure.

CESTAT Kolkata sets aside denial of preferential tariff benefits under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Area (AIFTA) for imported stainless steel coils. The tribunal held that non-cooperation by an overseas supplier alone cannot invalidate a Certificate of Origin without formal treaty mechanisms or adjudication. The ruling clarifies that customs authorities must follow due process before denying treaty benefits.

CESTAT Chennai ruled that transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 cannot be rejected solely on NIDB data. The ruling reaffirms primacy of declared transaction value unless supported by legally admissible contemporaneous import evidence, impacting valuation disputes nationwide.

CESTAT Chandigarh has ruled that Section 110A of the Customs Act entitles importers to provisional release of restricted goods even when classification is disputed, provided there is no allegation of concealment, fraud, or misdeclaration. This overturns blanket denials based on voided CBIC circulars and reinforces natural justice by requiring disclosure of test reports before denying release, impacting all importers of regulated goods like jewelry and electronics.

CESTAT Kolkata rules that minor procedural breaches under the Advance Authorisation Scheme cannot justify confiscation of gold and jewellery unless there is intentional fraud or dishonest intent. This reinforces that administrative errors, absent mens rea, are curable and not punishable by asset seizure - a critical safeguard for exporters and jewellery traders facing rigid customs enforcement.

CESTAT Kolkata rules that merely possessing exotic birds within India does not amount to smuggling under the Customs Act unless the Revenue proves they were illegally imported. This shifts the legal burden squarely onto the Department, protecting bird owners from presumption-based penalties and clarifying the limits of customs enforcement in wildlife cases.

CESTAT Kolkata holds that mere control over premises where smuggled gold is found, coupled with inability to prove lawful possession, suffices to impose penalty under Section 112 - shifting the burden to the possessor to explain lawful origin. This clarifies that statutory liability under customs law extends beyond ownership to de facto control, impacting warehouse operators, agents, and third-party custodians.

The Allahabad High Court granted bail in a Customs Act case after finding the department's gold valuation exceeded Rs.1 crore only due to erroneous calculation, making the offence bailable under Section 135(1)(e)(i). This reinforces that accurate valuation, not speculative assessment, determines bailability in smuggling cases - a critical safeguard for accused facing prolonged custody.

CESTAT Allahabad quashed Rs. 8 lakh penalties on gold and silver seizures, ruling that customs authorities cannot impose penalties under Section 112(b) based on uncorroborated suspicion alone. The ruling mandates concrete evidence of foreign origin and actual knowledge of smuggling-setting a vital precedent for travelers and traders facing arbitrary confiscations without proof of intent.