Section 28AB. [Omitted] ****

Judgments on Section 28AB

• Mahesh Agarwal Partner vs Cc Sea Ch - Ii — CESTAT, 13 Mar 2026. Where higher-value parallel documents are recovered from the importer's own possession and corroborated by voluntary Section 108 admissions and extra-commercial payments, declared transaction value may be rejected, the…
• P C Jain vs Kolkata-Port — CESTAT, 15 May 2025. A charge of undervaluation cannot be sustained on diary entries and statements alone without independent evidence such as NIDB data, market enquiry or contemporaneous higher values, and an adjudication in which…
• Noble Resources And Trading India… vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 14 May 2025. A departmental circular cannot enlarge the exclusionary clause of a statutory exemption notification, and where an expression like 'agricultural product' is undefined, the common parlance and dictionary meaning apply,…
• M/S Bisco Limited Through Its Managing… vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise — Supreme Court of India, 20 Mar 2024. Goods kept outside a bonded warehouse but within the premises under a proper officer's permission under Section 64(d), which is never cancelled or revoked, are not 'improperly or unauthorisedly removed' under Sections…
• M/S.N.C.Alexender vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 9 Jun 2022. Show cause notices and adjudication orders issued by DRI officers are valid because they are appointed as 'Officers of Customs' under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022…
• Union Of India vs M/S Raj Grow Impex Llp — Supreme Court of India, 17 Jun 2021. Goods imported in contravention of import restrictions notified under the FTDR Act, 1992 are liable to absolute confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, and equity cannot aid importers who imported under the cover of…
• I.G. International vs Cc (Import) Nhavasheva — CESTAT, 25 Oct 2019. Payment of differential duty before issuance of the show cause notice does not bar imposition of penalty where undervaluation by suppression/fraud is established, but confiscation and redemption fine cannot be sustained…
• Cce,Ahmedabad vs M/S Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd — Supreme Court of India, 8 Aug 2016. An exemption notification must be construed on its own terms and its conditions strictly fulfilled — HSN Explanatory Notes being only a guide — so where imported goods are primarily used for a non-qualifying purpose…
• M/S. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.(Export), New Delhi — CESTAT, 29 Jul 2015. In a bona fide interpretational valuation dispute where the assessee has disclosed the relevant facts, there is no wilful misstatement or suppression, so the extended period of limitation, penalty and confiscation…
• Mega Corpration Ltd. vs C.C.(Preventive) — CESTAT, 9 Sep 2026. Where imported goods are liable to confiscation for breach of an exemption-notification condition, duty is payable under section 125(2) in terms of the importer's undertaking, and the limitation of section 28 - and…
• The Principal Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Gimpex Limited — Telangana High Court, 11 Aug 2026. Where an exemption/policy provision is genuinely ambiguous and the importer proceeds on an interpretation later upheld by High Courts, there is no intent to evade duty, and the extended period of limitation under the…
• Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd And Anr Thro. Its Director Shri Ashwin Shah vs Assistant Commissioner Of Customs — Bombay High Court, 16 Apr 2026. A refund-sanctioning order that grants the principal refund but is silent and gives no reasons on the claim for accrued interest is passed without application of mind and is unsustainable, entitling the claimant to a…
• Commissioner Of Customs - Chennai Ii… vs Hyundai Motor India Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 16 Dec 2025. Ex post facto approval by DGFT ratifying installation of EPCG capital goods at a supporting manufacturer's premises cures the initial breach of the exemption condition, and a duty demand is premature where the export…
• M/S Gold Ripe International Pvt Ltd vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 12 Dec 2025. Where imported goods are found on official testing to be mis-declared restricted items, they are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, with redemption only under Section 125 on payment of a fine,…
• Royal Industries Ltd vs C. Ludhiana — CESTAT, 30 Jun 2025. An adjudication order that relies on evidence not relied upon in the show cause notice and ignores the assessee's uncontradverted evidence, including re-warehousing certificates, while denying effective…
• Acer India Pvt Limited vs Cc Sea Ch - Ii — CESTAT, 25 Sep 2023. Where the importer is eligible to avail credit of the duties paid so that the case is revenue-neutral, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty cannot be sustained even though the confirmation of duty itself…
• Commissioner Of Customs, Acc (Import) vs Anurag Trading Company — Delhi High Court, 29 Mar 2023. Even where a recovery provision like Section 28B of the Customs Act prescribes no limitation, the demand must be initiated within a reasonable period — reasonably benchmarked to the five-year limitation under Section 28…
• The Commissioner Of Customs vs The Customs — Madras High Court, 1 Nov 2022. Where goods are imported at a concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods, the Central Excise officer is competent under Rule 8 of the 1996 Rules to verify end-use and recover the duty differential with…
• M/S. Djp International vs C.C.(Icd), New Delhi — CESTAT, 1 Jul 2015. An importer who voluntarily admits undervaluation, agrees to pay differential duty, and expressly forgoes Show Cause Notice and personal hearing without retraction cannot later challenge the valuation or allege breach…
• Al Amin Exports vs Commssioner Of Central Excise… .Opponent — Gujarat High Court, 27 Jan 2014. A mere assertion that the appeal has an excellent case on merits, without pleading and proving undue hardship, does not justify complete waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E, as an arguable point in appeal is not…

All 25 judgments