CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importer-appellant and set aside the demand of customs duty raised on imports made using transferred DFIA licences. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is permissible only in cases involving collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer. As the SCN contained no such specific allegation or supporting evidence against the appellant, the extended period could not be applied. Relying on precedent distinguishing void and voidable licences, CESTAT found the impugned order unsustainable and quashed the duty demand.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importer-appellant and set aside the demand of customs duty raised on imports made using transferred DFIA licences. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is permissible only in cases involving collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer. As the SCN contained no such specific allegation or supporting evidence against the appellant, the extended period could not be applied. Relying on precedent distinguishing void and voidable licences, CESTAT found the impugned order unsustainable and quashed the duty demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
