MEIS scrip jurisdiction and mens rea for penalty: customs action and Section 114AA penalty failed on unrevoked scrips and mere misclassification.

MEIS scrips issued by the DGFT and left unrevoked remained within the foreign trade regulatory domain, so customs authorities could not assume jurisdiction to proceed against the exporter or customs broker for alleged misuse merely because a different classification appeared in export documents. Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were inapplicable because the dispute did not involve import of goods or a demand for short-paid or short-levied duty. Penalty under Section 114AA also failed because a wrong classification, without proof of wilful false statement or mens rea, was insufficient. The Madras HC therefore answered the questions of law for the assessee and set aside the Tribunal's order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the customs authorities could proceed against the exporter and the customs broker on alleged misuse of MEIS scrips when the scrips had been issued by the DGFT and had not been revoked; (ii) whether Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act could be invoked on the facts where there was no import of goods into India and no demand for short-paid or short-levied duty; and (iii) whether penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act could be sustained against the customs broker on the basis of a wrong classification in the shipping bills.

Issue (i): Whether the customs authorities could proceed against the exporter and the customs broker on alleged misuse of MEIS scrips when the scrips had been issued by the DGFT and had not been revoked.

Analysis: MEIS rewards are granted under the foreign trade framework by the DGFT, and any question relating to grant, validity, or misuse of such scrips falls within that regulatory domain. The record showed that the scrips continued to remain valid and subsisting, and there was no revocation by the competent authority. In the absence of any action by the DGFT, the customs authorities could not enter the field occupied by the foreign trade authority merely because a different classification had been used in the export documents.

Conclusion: The customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on the alleged misuse of MEIS scrips.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act could be invoked on the facts where there was no import of goods into India and no demand for short-paid or short-levied duty.

Analysis: Section 28 operates in the context of recovery of duty that is short-paid, short-levied, not paid, or not levied, which was not the factual situation here. The controversy concerned the alleged misuse of export incentive scrips and not a customs duty demand arising from importation. On those facts, the invocation of Section 28 was held to be legally unsustainable, and the situation did not justify resort to Section 28AAA in the manner adopted by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act was not sustainable on the facts.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act could be sustained against the customs broker on the basis of a wrong classification in the shipping bills.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 114AA requires a wilful act involving false or incorrect material particulars. A mere mis-description or incorrect classification, without proof of mens rea, was insufficient. The customs broker had acted only as an agent of the exporter, and the materials on record did not establish the requisite wilful intent to attract the penal provision.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act could not be sustained against the customs broker.

Final Conclusion: The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where incentive scrips granted by the competent foreign trade authority remain valid and unrevoked, the customs authorities cannot assume jurisdiction to penalise an alleged misuse of those scrips, and penalty provisions requiring wilful intent cannot be invoked on a mere wrong classification without mens rea.

---