Issues: (i) Validity of the supplementary show cause notice and corrigenda introducing denial of preferential exemption and enhanced duty demand; (ii) Authenticity of the country of origin certificates and entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011; (iii) Classification of the imported decorative stainless-steel sheets and profiles; (iv) Validity of rejection of the declared transaction value and redetermination of value; (v) Sustainability of penalties for alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation.

Issue (i): Validity of the supplementary show cause notice and corrigenda introducing denial of preferential exemption and enhanced duty demand.

Analysis: A supplementary notice may invoke additional statutory provisions or address further evidence, but must remain within the scope of the original notice and comply with the applicable limitation. The supplementary notice introduced a fresh substantive proposal to deny preferential exemption, enhanced the duty demand after one year, and was followed by corrigenda issued shortly before adjudication without adequate opportunity to respond. This amounted to a fresh notice in the guise of a supplementary notice and breached limitation and principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The demands, interest and penalties founded on the fresh proposals in the supplementary notice and corrigenda are unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Authenticity of the country of origin certificates and entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011.

Analysis: The imported consignments had been assessed and released after verification of the certificates. The sole certificate listed as unauthentic resulted from an incorrect certificate number being recorded; the actual certificate submitted for the relevant bill of entry was not among the certificates reported as unauthentic. No independent evidence established that the remaining certificates were false, and none of the certificates actually submitted was cancelled or revoked by the Malaysian authority. Certificates valid and authenticated at import could not be discredited through a subsequent communication unsupported by proof of the importer's involvement in any irregularity.

Conclusion: The country of origin certificates are authentic and acceptable, and the assessee is entitled to the exemption for all consignments.

Issue (iii): Classification of the imported decorative stainless-steel sheets and profiles.

Analysis: Reclassification required cogent technical evidence concerning the goods' form, composition and processing. No representative samples were drawn or tested, and no technical or expert evidence supported classification under CTH 7219. The PVD-coated products had been further worked and acquired the character of decorative wall-panel articles or profiles rather than mere flat-rolled stainless-steel products. Reliance on retracted statements was also impermissible without compliance with the statutory safeguards for their use.

Conclusion: The goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 73269060, and the Revenue's proposed classification under CTH 7219 is rejected.

Issue (iv): Validity of rejection of the declared transaction value and redetermination of value.

Analysis: Enhancement based on contemporary imports was made without following the prescribed valuation procedure. There was no documentary evidence that any amount exceeding the invoiced price had been paid, nor material justifying rejection of the declared transaction value.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value is acceptable, and the redetermined enhanced value is set aside.

Issue (v): Sustainability of penalties for alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation.

Analysis: The findings of false origin documentation, incorrect classification and undervaluation were not sustained. Consequently, suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established.

Conclusion: No penalty is imposable on the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The preferential exemption, declared classification and declared value stand accepted, with the consequential duty demand, interest, confiscation-related liabilities and penalties lacking legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A supplementary notice cannot introduce a time-barred substantive case beyond the original notice, and adverse findings on origin, classification or valuation require reliable evidence and compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure.

Issues: Whether ship stores carried on vessels converted from foreign run to coastal run were subject to DGFT import restrictions, warranting confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The DGFT clarification treated fuel incidental to a vessel as an integral part of the vessel rather than a normal import. That clarification was binding on Customs regarding ITC-policy restrictions. The same principle applied to ship stores intended solely for crew consumption during the coastal run, where duty had been paid on the estimated quantity consumed and the remaining stores continued to remain on board. Such stores were not imported for trading, and no ITC action was ordinarily taken upon conversion of an ocean-going vessel to coastal run.

Conclusion: DGFT restrictions did not apply to the ship stores; their confiscation and the penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether mandatory pre-deposit for maintaining customs appeals was complied with where the amount was paid by the appellants' employer through the ICEGATE mechanism.

Analysis: Section 129E requires the appellant to deposit the prescribed percentage before an appeal can be entertained. The electronic voluntary-payment facility under Circular No. 27/2024-CUS had replaced manual TR-6 payments and required ICEGATE registration and an IEC; foreign-national appellants could not independently access that facility without an IEC, PAN and Indian mobile number. The payment challans identified each appellant and the impugned order, while the employer had executed indemnity bonds accepting liability for the penalties and related losses. These circumstances established that the employer's payment was made on behalf of, and attributable to, the appellants.

Conclusion: The employer's payment was treated as payment by the appellants, and the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E stood complied with.

Issues: (i) Whether diversion of imported goods from the designated public bonded warehouse to an unauthorised private yard contravened the warehousing requirements; (ii) Whether such contravention rendered the goods liable to confiscation; (iii) Whether the importer was liable for diversion carried out by its warehouse operator; (iv) Whether alleged irregularities in the search and electronic evidence vitiated the proceedings; (v) Whether redemption fine and penalty were legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether diversion of imported goods from the designated public bonded warehouse to an unauthorised private yard contravened the warehousing requirements.

Analysis: Permission for warehousing is confined to the warehouse specified by the proper officer. The warehousing bond and permission required direct deposit in the approved bonded warehouse so as to maintain uninterrupted customs control. The goods were admittedly transported to an unapproved private yard rather than the designated warehouse; custody with the same warehouse operator did not amount to substantial compliance.

Conclusion: The diversion contravened the warehousing requirements, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether such contravention rendered the goods liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Removal to an unauthorised premises was contrary to the permission granted for warehousing. Liability under the confiscation provision depends on breach of the conditions governing removal and warehousing, not on proof of clandestine clearance, actual duty evasion, sale, or mens rea.

Conclusion: The goods were liable to confiscation, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the importer was liable for diversion carried out by its warehouse operator.

Analysis: The operator had been engaged by the importer for transportation, handling, and warehousing. Acts of an authorised agent are deemed to have been undertaken with the importer's knowledge and consent unless the presumption is rebutted. No contemporaneous material established that the operator acted outside its authority, while the evidence supported the importer's knowledge of the storage arrangement.

Conclusion: The importer remained responsible for the diversion, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether alleged irregularities in the search and electronic evidence vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The contravention was independently established by transport and gate records, warehouse records, statements recorded during investigation, physical verification, and the admitted non-deposit of goods in the designated warehouse. The electronic communications were only corroborative; therefore, alleged defects in search authorisation or electronic-evidence requirements could not invalidate the adjudication.

Conclusion: The alleged evidentiary and search irregularities did not vitiate the proceedings, against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether redemption fine and penalty were legally sustainable.

Analysis: Provisional release under bond and bank guarantee does not remove the power to confiscate goods and impose redemption fine. The importer's failure to ensure deposit in the designated warehouse rendered the goods confiscable, and the authorised operator's acts remained attributable to the importer. The fine was not shown to be arbitrary or disproportionate.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were legally sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Unauthorised diversion of warehoused imported goods outside the approved warehousing chain attracted the statutory consequences of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Imported goods removed under warehousing permission must be deposited in the specifically authorised bonded warehouse; diversion to an unauthorised premises attracts confiscation irrespective of duty evasion or mens rea, and an importer is answerable for acts of its authorised warehouse agent unless the statutory presumption is rebutted.

Issues: Whether imported laser imagers are classifiable as other diagnostic instruments or apparatus under CTH 9018 90 19, or as residual accessories under CTH 9033 00 00.

Analysis: The laser imager has no independent diagnostic capability and merely prints data received from diagnostic equipment; it is therefore an accessory rather than a diagnostic instrument or apparatus. Under Note 2(b) of Chapter 90, an accessory is classifiable with a machine only where it is suitable solely or principally for a particular kind of machine or for machines falling under the same tariff heading. The laser imagers were compatible not only with machines under CTH 9018 but also with equipment under CTH 9022. Consequently, they could not be classified with machines under a single tariff heading under Note 2(b), and the residual rule in Note 2(c) applied.

Conclusion: The laser imagers are classifiable under CTH 9033 00 00 as accessories not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 90, and not under CTH 9018 90 19. The finding is against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether acceptance of examination findings by a Customs Broker, without proof of authority from the importer, established the importer's acceptance of the reclassification and revaluation; (ii) Whether the reclassification, revaluation, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable on the evidence available.

Issue (i): Whether acceptance of examination findings by a Customs Broker, without proof of authority from the importer, established the importer's acceptance of the reclassification and revaluation.

Analysis: The examination was attended by the Customs Broker and a Chartered Engineer, but no authority authorising the Customs Broker to accept classification or valuation on the importer's behalf was produced. No provision under the Customs Broker licensing regime was identified as conferring such authority. The importer could therefore not be treated as having been present during examination or as having accepted the departmental findings.

Conclusion: The purported acceptance by the Customs Broker did not bind the importer; the principles of natural justice were violated, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reclassification, revaluation, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable on the evidence available.

Analysis: The finding that part of the consignment comprised steel coils was reached without specialist opinion, testing or market enquiry. The material was imported for melting, and the claim that the alleged coils were defective and damaged and incapable of use as such was not disproved. The evidentiary basis was consequently insufficient to establish incorrect classification or declared value.

Conclusion: No misdeclaration of classification or value was established; confiscation and the consequential redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The importer's declared treatment of the goods prevailed, and the adverse fiscal consequences founded on the departmental examination findings were nullified.

Ratio Decidendi: An importer cannot be bound by a Customs Broker's acceptance of classification or valuation absent authority, and adverse reclassification or valuation findings require reliable evidentiary support.

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under the Target Plus Scheme required a strict product-to-product nexus between imported and exported goods, or whether a broad nexus with the relevant export product group was sufficient; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period for recovery of duty and consequential penalties was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under the Target Plus Scheme required a strict product-to-product nexus between imported and exported goods, or whether a broad nexus with the relevant export product group was sufficient.

Analysis: The Target Plus Scheme, read with the Handbook of Procedures and the exemption notification, permitted use of duty credit for imports having a broad nexus with goods within the defined product group specified in the duty credit certificate. The scheme did not require proof that imported goods were usable in the manufacture of the very item exported. The broad-nexus test nevertheless required a demonstrable connection with each relevant product group and could not validate imports against unrelated export groups.

Conclusion: A strict product-to-product nexus was not required, and a broad nexus with the relevant product group was sufficient, in favour of the assessee. However, GL's nexus was established only for exports falling within the Engineering Products group and not for the Chemicals and Allied Products group.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period for recovery of duty and consequential penalties was invocable.

Analysis: The policy language governing broad nexus was inherently ambiguous and capable of more than one interpretation. GL acted on an interpretation subsequently sustained by High Courts, while the duty credit certificates remained valid and had not been revoked, cancelled, or amended by the licensing authority. Shipping bills and export documents were already part of Customs records. These circumstances did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty, which were essential for the extended period and penalty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the setting aside of duty demand and consequential penalties was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The product-group broad-nexus standard governs imports under the Target Plus Scheme, but recovery based on the extended limitation period cannot be sustained without proof of the requisite culpable conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption scheme contains an objectively ambiguous nexus requirement and the assessee acts on a bona fide interpretation under valid, unrevoked licences, such conduct does not by itself constitute wilful suppression or intent to evade duty for invoking extended limitation and penalty.

Issues: Whether the imported areca nuts, detained on suspicion of misdeclaration, were required to be sampled and examined by the jurisdictional food safety authority under the prescribed food-import procedure.

Analysis: Regulation 5 requires the food-import clearance process to be initiated through the Integrated Declaration Form and processing by the Food Import Clearance System. The proposed examination concerned the nature and composition of the goods, whether they were roasted areca nuts, their moisture content, and fitness for human consumption. These parameters fall within the examination required by the competent food safety authority under the applicable statutory procedure.

Conclusion: Representative samples must be forwarded to the jurisdictional Food Safety Authority for examination of the specified parameters; Customs authorities may also send samples to SIIB and take further action in accordance with law on the resulting material.

Issues: (i) Whether the confirmed differential customs duty and interest on gold and silver found short were sustainable; (ii) Whether penalties on the proprietorship concern and its supervising individual were sustainable where the shortage resulted from theft and there was no evidence of intentional diversion; (iii) Whether penalty on the individual alleged to have removed the goods could rest on untested statements and an unverified police recovery; (iv) Whether a separate penalty could be imposed on the proprietor when penalty had been imposed on the proprietorship concern.

Issue (i): Whether the confirmed differential customs duty and interest on gold and silver found short were sustainable.

Analysis: The duty-free goods were found short during stock verification, and the duty liability with interest had been voluntarily paid and appropriated. The payment did not establish intentional diversion for penalty purposes, but the shortage supported retention of the duty and interest demand.

Conclusion: The differential customs duty and applicable interest were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties on the proprietorship concern and its supervising individual were sustainable where the shortage resulted from theft and there was no evidence of intentional diversion.

Analysis: The shortage was reported by the unit itself, which sought customs stock verification after reporting theft. The record did not establish intentional diversion or an intent to evade duty, and the duty and interest had been paid, leaving no revenue loss.

Conclusion: The penalties on the proprietorship concern and its supervising individual were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty on the individual alleged to have removed the goods could rest on untested statements and an unverified police recovery.

Analysis: The relied-upon statement makers did not appear despite summons for cross-examination. The requirements of Section 138B for relying on those statements were not met, and no independent evidence corroborated them. The police recovery of silver was not identified or matched with the goods found short, while no gold was recovered; the theft complaint was also closed after reconciliation.

Conclusion: The alleged involvement was not conclusively established, and the penalty on the individual was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether a separate penalty could be imposed on the proprietor when penalty had been imposed on the proprietorship concern.

Analysis: A proprietorship concern and its proprietor are not distinct legal persons for this purpose. Once penalty had been imposed on the proprietorship concern, an additional separate penalty on its proprietor was impermissible.

Conclusion: The separate penalty on the proprietor was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty consequence of the stock shortage remains, but the penal consequences fail for want of proof of deliberate diversion and, in the proprietor's case, because of the identity of the proprietorship concern and proprietor.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for shortage of duty-free goods requires reliable evidence of deliberate diversion; untested statements not admissible under the statutory safeguards and uncorroborated recovery cannot establish such liability, and a proprietor cannot be separately penalised where the proprietorship concern has been penalised.

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure of the gold and diamond jewellery was validly founded on reasonable belief of smuggling; (ii) Whether the burden of proving non-smuggled character shifted under Section 123; (iii) Whether the investigation statements could sustain confiscation and penalties without compliance with the statutory evidentiary requirements; (iv) Whether confiscation of the gold, diamond jewellery and cash, and the connected penalties, was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure of the gold and diamond jewellery was validly founded on reasonable belief of smuggling.

Analysis: The seized ornaments and diamonds bore no foreign markings, were recovered inland rather than at a border, port, airport or notified customs area, and lacked material independently establishing foreign origin. A general suspicion that foreign markings may have been removed could not constitute particularised reasonable belief based on material existing before seizure.

Conclusion: The seizure was invalid for want of reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the burden of proving non-smuggled character shifted under Section 123.

Analysis: The statutory burden could arise only upon prima facie material establishing foreign origin. The absence of foreign markings, supporting forensic or documentary material, and valid reasonable belief meant that the Department remained responsible for proving the alleged smuggled character of the goods.

Conclusion: Section 123 was inapplicable and the burden did not shift to the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the investigation statements could sustain confiscation and penalties without compliance with the statutory evidentiary requirements.

Analysis: The prescribed conditions for treating investigation statements as relevant evidence were not shown to have been fulfilled. The statements remained untested and substantially uncorroborated by independent evidence; consequently, they could not have decisive evidentiary value for confiscation or penalties.

Conclusion: The statements could not lawfully be the sole basis for confiscation or penalties, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether confiscation of the gold, diamond jewellery and cash, and the connected penalties, was sustainable.

Analysis: No importation, attempted importation, foreign origin, or applicable statutory prohibition was proved. The invoices supporting domestic procurement were available on the GST portal and their genuineness was not disputed. There was also no evidence that the seized cash represented sale proceeds of smuggled gold.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the goods and cash, and the penalties, were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order vacating the confiscation, directing release of the cash, and setting aside penalties was legally maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In an inland seizure of unmarked gold or jewellery, reasonable belief and prima facie proof of foreign origin are essential before the statutory burden can shift; uncorroborated investigation statements not validly admitted cannot establish smuggling or sustain confiscation.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals were barred by limitation where one appeal was initially filed before the wrong customs office and the other was filed by e-mail within the prescribed period, with the physical copy received later; (ii) Whether refund of excess customs duty paid under protest was available in respect of finally assessed Bills of Entry despite no appeal having been filed against those assessments.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals were barred by limitation where one appeal was initially filed before the wrong customs office and the other was filed by e-mail within the prescribed period, with the physical copy received later.

Analysis: The appeal in the first matter had been filed within time but was lodged with the Commissioner of Customs rather than the Commissioner (Appeals). The period during which it remained before the wrong office was liable to exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly as the receiving office neither transferred nor promptly returned it. In the second matter, the appeal was filed by e-mail on the last permissible date and the hard copy was dispatched the same day. In any event, the five-day delay recorded on receipt of the physical copy was within the condonable period.

Conclusion: The appeals were not barred by limitation, or alternatively the delay was liable to be excluded or condoned, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of excess customs duty paid under protest was available in respect of finally assessed Bills of Entry despite no appeal having been filed against those assessments.

Analysis: The Bills of Entry concerned had been finally assessed under the classification declared by the assessee, while duty at the higher rate had been paid under protest. Since Revenue neither appealed against those completed assessments nor initiated proceedings to alter the classification, the assessee was not required to challenge assessments that accorded with its own declaration. A refund proceeding cannot reopen a concluded assessment; however, the final assessments here supported the refund claim. Each Bill of Entry constitutes a separate assessment, and pending disputes regarding other Bills of Entry could not postpone or defeat refund relating to the independently finalised Bills of Entry. The protest had not been vacated by Revenue.

Conclusion: Refund of excess duty paid under protest was available for the 73 finally assessed Bills of Entry, in favour of the assessee; no refund was granted in respect of the provisionally assessed Bills of Entry.

Final Conclusion: The classification merits in the first matter require consideration by the appellate authority, while the refund claim is enforceable only to the extent attributable to completed assessments and excess duty paid under protest.

Ratio Decidendi: An importer need not challenge a final assessment that accepts its declared classification in order to obtain refund of excess duty paid under protest; each finally assessed Bill of Entry is independently determinative unless Revenue lawfully reopens or challenges it.

Issues: (i) Whether the Body Control Module and Integrated Body Unit are classifiable as electronic automatic regulators under tariff item 9032 8910 or as motor-vehicle parts under tariff item 8708 9900; (ii) Whether the Tyre Pressure Monitoring System is classifiable under tariff item 9032 8910 or tariff item 8708 9900.

Issue (i): Whether the Body Control Module and Integrated Body Unit are classifiable as electronic automatic regulators under tariff item 9032 8910 or as motor-vehicle parts under tariff item 8708 9900.

Analysis: The prior final order concerning the same goods had determined, on their functional characteristics and the distinction between programmable logic controllers and programmable process controllers, that the modules continuously monitor inputs, compare them with desired parameters and issue corrective output signals to control automotive functions automatically. No superior judicial decision staying, modifying or reversing that order was produced. Judicial discipline therefore required adherence to the prior determination.

Conclusion: The Body Control Module and Integrated Body Unit are classifiable under tariff item 9032 8910. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tyre Pressure Monitoring System is classifiable under tariff item 9032 8910 or tariff item 8708 9900.

Analysis: The proposed classification under tariff item 8708 9900 was unsupported by foundational findings on the system's functional characteristics. Classification is a matter of chargeability, and Revenue bears the burden to establish a tariff classification different from that claimed. A generic description of the item as an electronic control unit could not establish its classification because each such unit must be classified according to its distinct function.

Conclusion: The Tyre Pressure Monitoring System is classifiable under tariff item 9032 8910. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The claimed concessional classification under tariff item 9032 8910 governs all the imported goods, and the differential duty demand and interest lack legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Revenue seeks to displace a claimed tariff classification, it must establish the goods' relevant functional characteristics and discharge the burden of proving the alternative classification; a binding coordinate-bench determination on materially identical goods must be followed absent a contrary superior decision.

Issues: Whether interest under the amended warehousing provisions is chargeable on capital goods intended for use in a warehouse permitted to undertake operations under Section 65, where a portion of the goods was not installed and was subsequently cleared for home consumption after ninety days.

Analysis: The amended Section 61(1)(a) permits capital goods intended for use in a Section 65 warehouse to remain warehoused until clearance, without any outer warehousing period. Section 61(2) imposes interest only on the residuary goods covered by Section 61(1)(c); consequently, the ninety-day trigger does not apply to goods falling under Section 61(1)(a). The expression "intended for use" requires determination of the intention at the time of import and warehousing, not retrospective assessment based on actual installation or subsequent clearance. Non-installation of a small portion of the imported modules owing to supervening design and layout constraints did not alter their original character as capital goods intended for use in the Section 65 warehouse. The circular concerning goods cleared "as such" applies to goods used for non-Section 65 purposes and cannot revive an interest levy absent from the amended statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The imported solar modules fell within Section 61(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and not within the residuary category under Section 61(1)(c); interest under Section 61(2) was therefore not payable on their clearance for home consumption.

Issues: (i) Whether Indian currency seized during investigation into fraudulent customs-scheme claims was liable to be treated as confiscable goods under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and released for want of notice under Section 110(2). (ii) Whether release of the seized currency could be directed in writ jurisdiction while the investigation into connected economic offences remained pending.

Issue (i): Whether Indian currency seized during investigation into fraudulent customs-scheme claims was liable to be treated as confiscable goods under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and released for want of notice under Section 110(2).

Analysis: Section 110(1) permits seizure of goods liable to confiscation, and Section 110(2) requires their return if notice under Section 124(a) is not issued within the prescribed period. Section 110(3), in contrast, permits seizure and retention of documents or things useful or relevant to proceedings without prescribing such period. Currency is goods under Section 110(1) where it is itself the subject of a customs violation, such as undeclared cross-border carriage. Currency seized as material connected with investigation into fabricated documents, illegal gratification and hawala transactions is a thing under Section 110(3), rather than confiscable goods under Section 110(1).

Conclusion: The seized currency was a thing under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and was not required to be released under Section 110(2); this issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether release of the seized currency could be directed in writ jurisdiction while the investigation into connected economic offences remained pending.

Analysis: The seizure arose from an ongoing investigation which disclosed possible violations extending beyond customs law, including offences concerning unaccounted funds, illegal gratification and related economic wrongdoing. Releasing material reasonably believed to be connected with such transactions before completion of investigation would preclude and foreclose effective investigation. Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was therefore unwarranted to order release of the suspected crime proceeds at that stage.

Conclusion: Release of the seized currency during the pending investigation was impermissible; this issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The currency may be retained as evidentiary material for completion of the investigation and is to be kept in an interest-bearing deposit with a nationalised bank pending its completion.

Ratio Decidendi: Currency seized as material evidence relevant to customs proceedings and connected economic-offence investigation constitutes a thing under Section 110(3), not confiscable goods under Section 110(1), unless the currency itself is the subject of the customs violation.

Issues: Whether imports of bulk drugs or active pharmaceutical ingredients, classifiable under Chapters 28 or 29, attract IGST at 5% under Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Imported articles are liable to IGST under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at the rate applicable to like domestic supplies. The expression "drug" in the rate notification is undefined; therefore, its meaning was determined from Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Clause 2(b) of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013. Those provisions include substances used as components of drugs, and consequently encompass bulk drugs and APIs used as such or as ingredients in formulations. Their import for testing, clinical trials, bioavailability, or bioequivalence studies does not alter their statutory character as drugs.

Analysis: Sl. No. 226 is a description-based entry for all drugs and medicines under Chapter 30 or any Chapter. The semicolon separates the coverage of drugs and medicines from formulations manufactured from bulk drugs; it does not confine the former to finished dosage forms. The expression "any Chapter" covers APIs falling under Chapters 28 and 29. As the specific description-based entry prevails over the general chapter-based entries for inorganic and organic chemicals, Sl. No. 226 governs the applicable IGST rate. The entry is a taxing rate notification, not an exemption notification.

Conclusion: Bulk drugs and APIs imported as drugs, including those imported for manufacture, testing, clinical trials, bioavailability, or bioequivalence studies, are liable to IGST at 5% under Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, provided they are not covered by the nil-rated entry at Sl. No. 113 of Notification No. 10/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Ratio Decidendi: Where APIs and bulk drugs satisfy the statutory definition of drugs, a specific description-based rate entry for drugs applicable to any chapter prevails over general chapter-based chemical entries.

Issues: (i) Whether enhancement of the assessable value and consequential differential-duty demand based on valuation of identical goods were sustainable; (ii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for alleged misdeclaration were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether enhancement of the assessable value and consequential differential-duty demand based on valuation of identical goods were sustainable.

Analysis: The declared goods were brass scrap of ISRI specification 'Pallu', and the tariff coverage of brass scrap included several varieties of brass scrap. Neither the tariff nor the applicable specifications established that the length or uniformity of the brass tubes excluded them from brass scrap. The departmental assessment contradicted the chartered engineer's report on serviceability. Further, the authorities did not provide particulars or documentary evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods to support valuation under Rule 5.

Conclusion: Enhancement of value and the consequential differential-duty demand were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for alleged misdeclaration were sustainable.

Analysis: The departmental conclusion that the goods were serviceable pipes rather than declared scrap rested only on visual inspection and was not supported by expert evidence or material establishing misdeclaration. The expert report indicated that the imported tubes were rejected or discarded and not serviceable. In the absence of proof of misdeclaration, the statutory basis for confiscation and consequential penal action was not established.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessed customs liability, confiscatory consequences and penal consequences founded on the alleged misdeclaration and unsupported valuation were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared transaction value cannot be displaced under the identical-goods valuation method, nor can confiscation for misdeclaration be sustained, without reliable evidence of misdeclaration and contemporaneous identical-goods value; unsupported visual inspection cannot prevail over contrary expert material.

Issues: Whether a steamer agent that lodged and verified the Import General Manifest was liable to penalty for deficiency and misdeclaration of imported goods under Section 116 of the Customs Act.

Analysis: Sections 2(31), 30, 31, 116 and 148 of the Customs Act treat the person acting for the person-in-charge of a conveyance, including an accepted agent dealing with cargo, as liable where manifested cargo is not unloaded or the deficiency is not satisfactorily accounted for. Lodgment of the Import General Manifest carries a verified declaration as to its truth and identifies the lodging agent as acting for the master of the vessel. The substantial discrepancy between the manifested quantities and the goods actually found in 150 containers was not satisfactorily explained. Contractual stipulations in bills of lading that cargo particulars were supplied by the shipper and unchecked by the carrier could not override statutory obligations. The Tribunal had not adequately addressed these facts or the governing principle on agent liability.

Conclusion: The steamer agent was liable to penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act for failure to file an accurate and complete Import General Manifest and to satisfactorily account for the deficiency in manifested goods.

Issues: Whether the open-ended continuation of suspension of a Customs Cargo Service Provider approval under Regulation 11(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Regulation 11(2) authorises immediate suspension only as an exceptional preventive measure where objectively supported circumstances establish an urgent and continuing threat requiring intervention without awaiting the inquiry procedure. It is distinct from suspension or revocation under Regulation 11(1), which requires observance of the procedural safeguards under Regulation 12. A preventive suspension cannot be continued indefinitely merely because an investigation remains pending; its continuance requires a demonstrated subsisting necessity, timely verification of alleged deficiencies, and consideration of less restrictive measures. Here, no notice or inquiry under Regulation 12 had commenced despite more than 100 days of suspension; the claimed corrective measures had not been verified; Customs officers remained posted at the facility; and more than 3,000 containers were cleared during suspension without reported incident. The available material did not establish an ongoing immediate risk warranting continued preventive suspension, while enhanced supervision and conditions could protect revenue and security interests proportionately.

Conclusion: The indefinite continuation of suspension under Regulation 11(2) was unsustainable; the approval was required to be restored, without precluding lawful proceedings under Regulation 11(1) following the prescribed inquiry.

Issues: Whether continuation of suspension of a Customs Broker licence was lawful where the post-decisional hearing mandated within fifteen days of suspension was conducted after expiry of that period.

Analysis: Regulation 16 creates an exceptional preventive power distinct from the regular inquiry procedure under Regulation 17. Immediate suspension requires both a pending or contemplated inquiry and recorded satisfaction that urgent intervention is necessary. As the initial suspension is made without a prior hearing, Regulation 16(2) mandates a post-decisional hearing within fifteen days; this safeguard is compulsory and cannot be extended administratively. The hearing was deferred by the licensing authority and ultimately conducted beyond the prescribed period, without any adjournment being attributable to the Customs Broker. The departmental instructions also require strict adherence to the prescribed procedure and timelines.

Conclusion: The delayed post-decisional hearing violated the mandatory requirement of Regulation 16(2); consequently, the order continuing suspension was unsustainable and the suspension stood revoked with immediate effect.