https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238272 The Tribunal held that Customs authorities lack jurisdiction to demand duty from exporters based on identified irregularities in exports. Instead, such matters must be referred to the DGFT for appropriate action. Despite the introduction of section 28AAA in the Customs Act, allowing duty demand in cases of fraud, it applies prospectively. The Tribunal granted unconditional stay on duty recovery during the appeal, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of legal and factual complexities involved. The decision dispensed with the pre-deposit condition, highlighting the importance of Customs reporting irregularities to DGFT for scrip cancellation rather than denying benefits directly. en-us Mon, 27 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238272 The Tribunal held that Customs authorities lack jurisdiction to demand duty from exporters based on identified irregularities in exports. Instead, such matters must be referred to the DGFT for appropriate action. Despite the introduction of section 28AAA in the Customs Act, allowing duty demand in cases of fraud, it applies prospectively. The Tribunal granted unconditional stay on duty recovery during the appeal, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of legal and factual complexities involved. The decision dispensed with the pre-deposit condition, highlighting the importance of Customs reporting irregularities to DGFT for scrip cancellation rather than denying benefits directly. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238272