https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107823 Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate entitlement to DEPB credit under Serial No. 86/Product Code 83; under the applicable policy and procedures, they could only report suspected irregularities to DGFT and could not sit in judgment over grant or eligibility of DEPB. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination denying DEPB eligibility was set aside. Further, Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 were not an order under s. 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 deemed as a prohibition under s. 11 of the Customs Act, and DEPB was not a "licence" nor a declaration for import; hence confiscation under ss. 113(d) and 113(i) failed, and penalty under s. 114(i) was unsustainable. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 14:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107823 Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate entitlement to DEPB credit under Serial No. 86/Product Code 83; under the applicable policy and procedures, they could only report suspected irregularities to DGFT and could not sit in judgment over grant or eligibility of DEPB. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination denying DEPB eligibility was set aside. Further, Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 were not an order under s. 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 deemed as a prohibition under s. 11 of the Customs Act, and DEPB was not a "licence" nor a declaration for import; hence confiscation under ss. 113(d) and 113(i) failed, and penalty under s. 114(i) was unsustainable. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107823