Post-export DFIA transferees cannot be denied customs exemption on actual-use assumptions or public notice caps.

A transferee of a post-export DFIA cannot be denied customs exemption by importing an actual-use condition into the scheme when the notification does not impose that restriction, and customs must verify the export records rather than speculate about use in the exported goods. A value cap introduced through public notice was treated as inapplicable for curtailing entitlement absent valid enforceable authority. On that basis, the denial of exemption was set aside and restoration of DFIA validity for the unexpired period was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a transferee of a post-export DFIA can be denied customs exemption on the ground of actual use of the imported input in the exported goods; (ii) Whether a value cap or similar restriction introduced through public notice could be used to deny the exemption; (iii) Whether the impugned denial of exemption was sustainable and whether restoration of DFIA validity was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether a transferee of a post-export DFIA can be denied customs exemption on the ground of actual use of the imported input in the exported goods.

Analysis: The DFIA scheme was treated as a post-export, transferable scheme distinct from pre-export authorisations. On that basis, the Court held that importing an actual-use condition into the entitlement of a transferee was not supported by the scheme or the exemption notification. The Court further held that customs authorities could not deny benefit by speculating about the use of the input in the export product without first examining the shipping bills or other verifiable material relating to the original export.

Conclusion: The actual use objection was rejected and the exemption could not be denied on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether a value cap or similar restriction introduced through public notice could be used to deny the exemption.

Analysis: The Court held that the value restriction relied upon by the revenue, having been introduced through public notice, could not operate to curtail the entitlement under the DFIA scheme in the absence of valid enforceable authority. It treated the public notice-based cap as inapplicable for restricting import entitlement under the notification.

Conclusion: The value-cap objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned denial of exemption was sustainable and whether restoration of DFIA validity was warranted.

Analysis: The Court found that the denial rested on grounds beyond the original basis of rejection and without a proper factual foundation. It held that customs authorities could not substitute assumptions for verification of the export records and that the appellant, having been prevented by the dispute from utilising the authorisations, was entitled to restitutionary relief.

Conclusion: The denial order was set aside and restoration of licence validity for the unexpired period was directed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the customs demand was invalidated, and consequential relief was granted by directing restoration of DFIA validity.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee under a post-export, transferable DFIA cannot be denied exemption by importing an actual-use requirement or other extra-notification restrictions unless such conditions are legally enforceable and factually verified from the export records.

---