2025-VIL-949-CESTAT-DEL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-949-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Sections 28AAA, 108 and 138B of Customs Act, 1962 – Recovery of scrips – Absence of jurisdiction – Appellant is engaged in manufacture and export of readymade garments – To encourage exports to remote markets, Government introduced Focus Market Scheme (FMS) – Under FMS, exporters often offer reduced prices to customers in designated countries like Panama – Appellant claimed benefits on goods exported through shipping bills – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing to demand ineligible benefit availed under FMS – Principal Commissioner ordered for recovery of ineligible Focus Market Scrips from Appellant under Section 28AAA of the Act – Whether jurisdiction under Section 28AAA of the Act could have been invoked without DGFT having initiated process for cancellation of license – HELD – Demand under Section 28AAA of the Act can be made only after DGFT, which is the concerned regional authority, initiates action for cancellation of instrument – It would be impermissible for customs authorities to either doubt the validity of an instrument issued under FTDR Act or go behind benefits availed pursuant thereto absent any adjudication having been undertaken by DGFT – Action for recovery of benefits claimed and availed would have to necessarily be preceded by competent authority under FTDR Act having found that certificate or scrip had been illegally obtained – Impugned order is without jurisdiction, as DGFT has neither cancelled the instrument nor even initiated proceedings for cancellation of instrument – Appeals allowed - Recording of statement – Admissibility – Whether statement of proprietor of Freight Forwarder recorded under Section 108 of the Act could be considered as evidence under Section 138B of the Act – HELD – Impugned order has placed reliance upon statement of proprietor of Freight Forwarder made under Section 108 of Act, in which Appellant has been implicated – Partner of Appellant company in his statement stated that all export documents received by him mentioned the country of export as Panama and he did not instruct anybody to change country of export – Provisions of Section 138B(1)(b) of the Act have been held to be mandatory and failure to comply with procedure would mean that no reliance can be placed on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act – Statement of proprietor of Freight Forwarder made under Section 108 of the Act cannot be considered as evidence, as he was not examined by adjudicating authority – It is not possible to sustain order passed by Principal Commissioner and hence, it is set aside.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Biweekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Rules & Industry Preparedness
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?