2025 (4) TMI 1197 - AT - Customs

Levy of Custom duty - appellant have cleared the imported goods under Release order issued against DEPB Scrips by the DGFT - 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. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT Ahmedabad) addressed appeals concerning demand of customs duty on imports cleared under DEPB Release Advice allegedly issued fraudulently. The department contended that since the DEPB Scrips were fraudulently obtained, imports under such Release Advice are liable for duty.The appellant argued that "there is nothing on record that the DEPB Scrips or Release advice has been cancelled by the DGFT," relying on precedents including Titan Medical System Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. Union of India, asserting the import was legal and duty-free.The Revenue failed to provide confirmation on the cancellation status of the DEPB Scrips or Release Advice despite directions. The Tribunal emphasized that since the status of the DEPB license/release advice remains unascertained, the matter must be remanded.The Tribunal held: "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." Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed by way of remand for a fresh de novo adjudication.