Transferee importer protection under exemption notification depends on importer-specific suppression, with limitation under Customs law turning on attribution of misdeclaration.

Transferability of the licence, once accepted by the licensing authority after scrutiny, was treated as sufficient to protect the transferee importer under the exemption notification, and the burden of proving breach of notification conditions was not shifted to the ultimate importer. For extension of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, any alleged misdeclaration or suppression had to be attributable to the importer himself, not to an earlier licence holder; on that basis, a prima facie limitation case was made out and recovery was stayed with waiver of pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was sustainable against the transferee importer under the exemption notification, and whether the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked on the basis of any alleged misdeclaration or suppression by the transferor.

Analysis: The transferability of the licence was treated as having been accepted by the licensing authority after scrutiny, and the burden of proving breach of the notification conditions was not to be shifted to the ultimate importer. For invocation of the extended period under Section 28, the alleged statement or suppression had to be attributable to the importer himself, and not to a different person who obtained the licence earlier.

Outcome: A prima facie case was found on limitation, and unconditional stay of recovery together with waiver of pre-deposit of the confirmed duty and penalties was granted.

---