https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91638 The CESTAT set aside the Commissioner of Customs' Order-in-Original imposing penalties under sections 112(a) and 114(A) of the Customs Act for alleged violations of DFIA and Advance Authorization schemes. The tribunal found no clear determination of which licence was violated and noted that the DGFT had examined and dismissed allegations of misuse after due investigation. The tribunal emphasized that input transfer under the DFIA scheme is permissible with RA approval and that Customs authorities lack jurisdiction to question licence validity or impose penalties where DGFT has cleared the licences. Reliance was placed on precedent establishing that Customs cannot deny exemption based on unsubstantiated misrepresentation allegations. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty order was quashed. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:24 +0530 Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91638 The CESTAT set aside the Commissioner of Customs' Order-in-Original imposing penalties under sections 112(a) and 114(A) of the Customs Act for alleged violations of DFIA and Advance Authorization schemes. The tribunal found no clear determination of which licence was violated and noted that the DGFT had examined and dismissed allegations of misuse after due investigation. The tribunal emphasized that input transfer under the DFIA scheme is permissible with RA approval and that Customs authorities lack jurisdiction to question licence validity or impose penalties where DGFT has cleared the licences. Reliance was placed on precedent establishing that Customs cannot deny exemption based on unsubstantiated misrepresentation allegations. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty order was quashed. Highlights Customs Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:24 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91638