DEPB release advice validity required verification before customs duty liability could be finally determined on remand.

Where customs duty demand depended on a DEPB release advice alleged to have been obtained fraudulently, the record was insufficient because the status of the DEPB scrips and DGFT release advice had not been verified with certainty. As the core question was whether the release advice stood cancelled or remained valid, a final determination on duty liability could not be made on the existing material. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh de novo adjudication after verification of the DEPB licence and release advice status.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dispute concerning customs duty demand based on DEPB release advice alleged to have been obtained fraudulently should be remanded for verification of the status of the DEPB licence/release advice and for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The status of the DEPB scrips and the release advice issued by the DGFT was not placed on record with certainty, despite directions to the Revenue. Since the core dispute turned on whether the release advice stood cancelled or remained valid, the existing record was found insufficient for final adjudication of all issues. A fresh determination by the adjudicating authority was therefore required after ascertaining the status of the DEPB licence/release advice.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for passing a fresh de novo order after verifying the status of the DEPB licence/release advice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of remand, and the substantive controversy over customs duty liability was left open for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the validity or cancellation status of the DEPB release advice is uncertain on the record, a final determination of customs duty liability should await verification by the adjudicating authority in a fresh de novo proceeding.

---