https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783540 Diversion of EPCG capital goods to vendors' premises and non-endorsement of supporting manufacturers in the EPCG licence was held not to breach substantive EPCG conditions where there was no allegation of sale/transfer or non-fulfilment of export obligation, and DGFT had granted post facto inclusion of supporting manufacturers; applying the principle that once the licensing authority accepts compliance, customs cannot treat imports as unlawful, the duty demand and confiscation basis failed and Revenue's challenge was rejected. Absence of any clear, intentional false declaration in the SCN negatived penalty under s.114AA, which remained set aside. The objection to invocation of the extended period was rejected in bonded clearances, as liability could be examined upon failure to obtain EODC. Revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783540 Diversion of EPCG capital goods to vendors' premises and non-endorsement of supporting manufacturers in the EPCG licence was held not to breach substantive EPCG conditions where there was no allegation of sale/transfer or non-fulfilment of export obligation, and DGFT had granted post facto inclusion of supporting manufacturers; applying the principle that once the licensing authority accepts compliance, customs cannot treat imports as unlawful, the duty demand and confiscation basis failed and Revenue's challenge was rejected. Absence of any clear, intentional false declaration in the SCN negatived penalty under s.114AA, which remained set aside. The objection to invocation of the extended period was rejected in bonded clearances, as liability could be examined upon failure to obtain EODC. Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783540