Bona fide DFIA license transferees retain duty-free import benefits despite original holder's fraud

CESTAT Kolkata held that appellants who purchased DFIA licenses as bona fide transferees could not be denied duty-free import benefits despite original license holder's fraudulent activities. The tribunal distinguished between void ab-initio forged licenses and voidable licenses obtained fraudulently, ruling that valid transferable licenses at time of import remain effective until officially cancelled by licensing authority. Since DFIA licenses were genuine and DGFT-approved for transfer when imports occurred, subsequent suspension could not retrospectively affect duty-free imports. All demands and penalties against appellants were set aside, with appeals allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the goods imported by the appellants under freely transferable DFIA licenses are liable to be denied the DFIA benefit due to the original license holder fraudulently obtaining the licenses.
2. Whether the DFIA licenses obtained by fraud are void or voidable.
3. Whether the appellants, as bona fide purchasers of DFIA licenses, are liable for the duty forgone.
4. Applicability of extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Legality of penalties imposed on the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of DFIA Benefits Due to Fraudulent Obtaining of Licenses:

The core issue was whether the appellants, who imported goods under DFIA licenses that were fraudulently obtained by the original holder, could be denied the DFIA benefits. The tribunal found that the DFIA licenses were valid and transferable at the time of importation. It was established that the appellants were bona fide purchasers of these licenses and had no involvement in the original fraud. Therefore, the subsequent suspension or cancellation of the licenses could not affect the imports made prior to such actions.

2. Nature of DFIA Licenses: Void or Voidable:

The tribunal examined whether the licenses obtained by fraud were void or voidable. Citing precedents, it was concluded that a license obtained by fraud is voidable, not void ab initio. It remains valid until cancelled by the appropriate authority. This principle was supported by various judgments, including East India Commercial Company Ltd vs CC and Union of India v Sampat Raj Dugar, which held that subsequent cancellation does not retrospectively render imports illegal.

3. Liability of Bona Fide Purchasers for Duty Forgone:

The tribunal emphasized that the appellants, as bona fide purchasers, were not liable for the duty forgone. The DFIA licenses were valid and genuine at the time of import, and the appellants had no knowledge of the fraud committed by the original license holder. The tribunal relied on cases like Pee Jay International Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Supreme Castings Limited Vs. Jt. Director General of Foreign Trade, which supported the appellants' position that bona fide purchasers should not be penalized for fraud they were unaware of.

4. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation:

The tribunal found that the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, was not applicable. There was no evidence of fraud, misstatement, or suppression of facts by the appellants. The tribunal cited the case of M/s Neev Trading Company, which held that the extended period could not be invoked when the appellants acted in good faith and the licenses were valid at the time of import.

5. Legality of Penalties Imposed:

Given the findings that the appellants were bona fide purchasers and the licenses were valid at the time of import, the tribunal concluded that penalties imposed on the appellants were not justified. The tribunal set aside all demands and penalties, affirming that the appellants were entitled to consequential reliefs.

Conclusion:

The appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, and all demands and penalties against them were set aside. The tribunal held that the appellants, as bona fide purchasers of valid DFIA licenses, were not liable for the duty forgone, and the subsequent cancellation of licenses did not affect their imports. The decision underscored the principle that a license obtained by fraud is voidable, not void, and remains valid until officially cancelled.

---