https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778062 CESTAT set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals. It held DRI/Customs lacked power to declare DGFT-issued DEPB scrips ab initio void; only DGFT could void them. Demands framed under s.125(2) were without authority, since s.125 is for redemption fines not duty assessment (duties arise under s.28). Confiscation and penalties under ss.111/112 and ss.113/114/114(i) against importers, bank officers and a chartered accountant were unsustainable where DEPB scrips were validly issued and goods were cleared or already exported. Alleged invalidity of BRCs was matter for RBI, not Customs. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Aug 2025 13:03:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778062 CESTAT set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals. It held DRI/Customs lacked power to declare DGFT-issued DEPB scrips ab initio void; only DGFT could void them. Demands framed under s.125(2) were without authority, since s.125 is for redemption fines not duty assessment (duties arise under s.28). Confiscation and penalties under ss.111/112 and ss.113/114/114(i) against importers, bank officers and a chartered accountant were unsustainable where DEPB scrips were validly issued and goods were cleared or already exported. Alleged invalidity of BRCs was matter for RBI, not Customs. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 27 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778062