2014 (5) TMI 559 - AT - Customs

Import of goods - DEPB scrips/advance Licences Non-payment of duty - Procurement of license by forged and fabricated documents - Bar of Limitation - Show cause notices to present assesses - Held that - Assessee purchased the advance licences, i.e. DEPB scrips/advance licences, from the market and made import of the goods by utilizing these licences without payment of duty - As the DEPB scrips/advance licences were obtained by submitting false/fabricated documents - Relying upon New India Insurance Co. v. Kamala 2001 (3) TMI 1014 - SUPREME COURT - Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery, therefore no merit found in the contention of assessee that demands are time barred Decided against assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of demands for customs duty on imported goods cleared under advance licences obtained through forged documents.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants who imported goods under advance licences obtained through forged documents by a third party. The licences were subsequently cancelled, and demands for customs duty were raised on the appellants by the revenue authority.

2. The appellants contended that they were not party to the forgery as the licences were valid at the time of import and were purchased from the market. They relied on various tribunal and court decisions to support their argument that duty demands are not sustainable in such cases.

3. The revenue authority argued that previous tribunal and court decisions, such as Friends Trading Co. case, established that importers are liable to pay duty even if the advance licences were procured through forged documents. They cited the decision in Apar Ltd. case to support their stance.

4. The Tribunal noted that the appellants indeed purchased the advance licences from the market and imported goods without paying duty. However, it emphasized that the licences were obtained through false documents. The Tribunal distinguished the case from Leader Valves Ltd. and highlighted the importance of legal validity in such matters.

5. Friends Trading Co. appealed the decision to the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court, but both appeals were dismissed, confirming the liability of importers in such cases. The Tribunal found no fault in the revenue authority's demands based on these precedents.

6. The appellants also argued that the demands were time-barred, but the Tribunal rejected this claim, citing the Supreme Court's stance that forgery cannot be validated by law. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the demands for customs duty on the imported goods cleared under advance licences obtained through forged documents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the validity of the demands for customs duty on goods imported under advance licences procured through forged documents, based on established legal precedents and the principle that forgery cannot be validated by law.