Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
FeaturedThe CBIC mandates that Customs zones appoint senior officers for expedited clearance of pollution response equipment, enhancing India's readiness for marine pollution incidents.
The CESTAT ruled that ownership of seized gold is established through GST documents, disallowing confiscation. Burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act was deemed fulfilled by the importer, making confiscation unsustainable.
The CESTAT Kolkata ruled that Indian currency cannot be confiscated under the Customs Act without clear evidence linking it to smuggling. Investigative statements alone do not suffice to justify cash seizure.
Concessional import duty on gold, silver, and platinum has been increased from 4.35% to 10% under recent customs notifications.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that a customs demand lacks legal standing without a mandatory show cause notice as prescribed by the Customs Act.
The Tripura High Court granted leave to appeal a trial court decision that ordered the release of seized gold, contradicting confirmed confiscation by appellate authorities.
The CESTAT Bangalore classified an automatic soap dispenser under CTI 8424 89 90, rejecting its categorization as a toiletry spray per HSN notes.
The Indian government has increased the concessional import duty on gold, silver, and platinum from 4.35% to 10%. This change is effective from May 13, 2026, under Notification 57/2000-Customs.
The Bombay High Court confirmed CESTAT’s verdict, ruling no evidence found of customs law violations by the broker, allowing retention of the customs broker licence.
The CESTAT ruled that Customs must pay interest on delayed refunds of Extra Duty Deposit, emphasizing that delays attract statutory interest regardless of litigation.
The CBIC has designated a common adjudicating authority for multiple customs show cause notices, aimed at enhancing the consistency of adjudication processes under the Customs Act.
The CESTAT determined penalties on an importer were inappropriate because all relevant documents were submitted, including a certificate from an authorized agency. The Tribunal attributed any assessment failures to customs authorities.