2023 (4) TMI 1376 - SC - Customs

Duty Free Import Authorisation Scheme (DFIA) - Petitioner, a transferee of DFIA, purchased the scrips and utilised the same for discharging duty liability against various Bills of Entry under N/N. 40 of 2006 and 17 of 2009 dated 19.2.2009 - demand of additional duty along with interest from the date of clearance not be recovered from it on the materials imported under various bills of entry as per N/N. 40 of 2006 as amended by condition (iiia) of N/N. 17 of 2009 Customs along with penalty u/s 114-A of the CA 1962 - demand on the ground that the petitioner had not declared at the time of clearance of the goods. As decided by HC 2017 (11) TMI 494 - MADRAS HIGH COURT condition imposed vide the amending Notification is incapable of satisfaction retrospectively. The petitioner, by virtue of the burden imposed under the amendment is required to have furnished the details relating to availment of duty by the transferor of the scrip at the original instance. Apart from being practically unworkable, the amendment imposes a condition that nullifies a right that vested in the petitioner and creates a burden that the petitioner would be incapable of discharging. While the satisfaction of the condition post date of Notification is mandatory and, accepted to be so by the petitioner we agree that the retrospective application of the same is liable to be interfered with. Condition (iii)(a) imposed in Notification 17 of 2009 must be read to have been enacted from and with effect from 19.2.2009 only. HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the peculiar circumstances no cause for interference with the impugned judgment is made. The civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed leaving the question of law open.

Summary

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeals without interference with the impugned judgment, leaving the question of law open. Delay was condoned. Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta presided over the case. Petitioner represented by Mr. N. Venkatraman and others, while respondent represented by Mr. K. V. Mohan and others.