2025 (4) TMI 1072 - AT - Customs

Clearance of imported goods under Release order issued against DEPB Scrips by the DGFT - case of the department is that the DEPB Release Scrips against advice was issued fraudulently therefore the import made on the basis of Release advice which is issued on the basis of fraudulent DEPB is liable for custom duty - HELD THAT - The entire argument of the Learned Counsel is that since the DEPB Scrips and/or Release Advice has not been cancelled by the DGFT the same stand valid and import thereunder cannot be questioned. In these circumstances it is found that the case of the department is that the DEPB Scrips was obtained fraudulently therefore any import made on that basis cannot be extended the benefit of duty free clearance under DEPB Scheme. However despite the direction from this Tribunal the Revenue could not produce the status report of the DEPB license/release advice issued there under. Therefore the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for ascertaining status of DEPB License/release advice issued by DGFT and thereafter to pass a fresh order on all the issues. Conclusion - Due to lack of clarity on the status the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh de novo adjudication after ascertaining the status of the DEPB License/Release Advice issued by DGFT. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT Ahmedabad) considered an appeal concerning demand of Customs duty on imported goods cleared under Release Advice issued against DEPB Scrips by DGFT. The department alleged the DEPB Scrips were fraudulently obtained, rendering the imports liable for duty. The appellant contended that since DGFT had not cancelled the DEPB Scrips or Release Advice, "the import made on the basis of said Release Advice is legal and correct and no custom duty can be demanded," relying on precedents including Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (2002), Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. Union of India (2023), and Jeena & Company v. Union of India (2024).The Revenue failed to provide confirmation on the cancellation status of the DEPB Scrips or Release Advice despite directions. The Tribunal emphasized that without proof of cancellation by DGFT, the validity of the Release Advice stands. However, due to lack of clarity on the status, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh de novo adjudication after ascertaining the status of the DEPB License/Release Advice issued by DGFT. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed by way of remand.