Duty demands upheld, penalties set aside in DFIA License case. Customs authority can recover duty without license cancellations.

The Tribunal upheld duty demands and interest against all appellants but set aside penalties on transferee appellants in a case involving DFIA Licenses for duty-free imports. The transferees were not held liable for fraud by original license holders but were required to pay duty. The Tribunal emphasized customs authorities could demand duty even without DGFT license cancellations. Section 28AAA applied post-2012 for duty recovery from both original holders and transferees. Penalties on transferees were set aside, and appeals of other appellants were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the DFIA Licenses and the duty-free import of goods.
2. Allegations of mis-declaration and fraudulent procurement of DFIA Licenses.
3. Applicability of extended period for demanding duty.
4. Liability of transferee appellants for duty and penalties.
5. Relevance of the non-cancellation of DFIA Licenses by DGFT.
6. Applicability of Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the DFIA Licenses and the duty-free import of goods:
The appellants argued that they purchased the DFIA Licenses on a bonafide belief that these licenses were genuine and issued by the appropriate authority. The licenses were valid at the time of import, and no duty or penalty should be imposed as the licenses were not canceled by DGFT. The appellants relied on several case laws, including Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Sneha Sales Corporation [2000 (121) ELT 577 (S.C.)] and Taparia Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. [2003 (161) ELT 47 (Bom)].

2. Allegations of mis-declaration and fraudulent procurement of DFIA Licenses:
The Revenue received intelligence that M/s. Gemini Overseas Ltd. exported fabrics made of Noil Yarn but declared them as Natural Silk Fabrics to obtain DFIA Licenses for duty-free import of mulberry raw silk yarns. Samples tested from seized consignments confirmed the use of Noil Silk Yarn and cotton, not 100% mulberry silk as declared. Investigations extended to earlier exports revealed similar mis-declarations, leading to the fraudulent procurement of 23 DFIA Licenses.

3. Applicability of extended period for demanding duty:
The appellants contended that the demand for duty was time-barred and they had no intention to evade payment. However, the Tribunal observed that fraud vitiates everything, and the extended period for demanding duty is applicable. The Tribunal cited the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Mumbai [2015 (319) ELT 546 (SC)], where the Supreme Court held that the extended period is available for demanding duty from transferees of fraudulently obtained licenses.

4. Liability of transferee appellants for duty and penalties:
The Tribunal held that the transferee appellants, who purchased the DFIA Licenses under a bonafide belief, cannot be held responsible for the fraud committed by the original license holders. However, they are still liable to pay the duty. The Tribunal differentiated from the CESTAT, Mumbai's order in the case of Incos ABS (India) Ltd. & others Vs. C.C., Kandla, stating that several relevant case laws were not considered in that order. The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the transferee appellants as they had no knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the goods used and exported.

5. Relevance of the non-cancellation of DFIA Licenses by DGFT:
The appellants argued that no action could be taken against them until the DFIA Licenses were canceled by DGFT. The Tribunal rejected this argument, citing the Supreme Court's decision in C.C., Hyderabad Vs. M/s. Pennar Industries Ltd. [2015-TIOL-162-SC-CUS], which held that customs authorities could demand duty even if the licenses were not canceled by DGFT. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions of the exemption notification must be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.

6. Applicability of Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellants argued that duty could only be demanded from the person to whom the DFIA Licenses were originally issued. The Tribunal observed that Section 28AAA, effective from 28/5/2012, allows the department to recover duty from both the original license holder and the transferee. However, this provision was not applicable to the present proceedings for periods prior to 28/5/2012. The Tribunal upheld the duty demands and interest but set aside the penalties on transferee appellants.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the duty demands and interest against all appellants but set aside the penalties imposed on the transferee appellants. The appeals filed by the transferee appellants were allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalties, while the appeals of the other appellants were dismissed.

---