https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784777 DRI officers were held competent to issue an SCN in drawback fraud cases, the Tribunal following its later decision affirming such jurisdiction; consequently, the challenge to the SCN's legality failed. Deliberate alteration of Bills of Lading after grant of LEO, to change the port of discharge and exploit Customs risk-assessment/facilitation parameters, was treated as fraud and therefore as misdeclaration in the Shipping Bills; accordingly, the conduct attracted Customs consequences. A company was held to fall within "person" under s.114 Customs Act by applying s.3 General Clauses Act; hence corporate liability was maintainable. However, absent proof of knowing abetment by the Customs broker or its employees, penalty under s.114(i) was held unsustainable and was set aside, leaving any lapse to CHALR proceedings. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:19:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784777 DRI officers were held competent to issue an SCN in drawback fraud cases, the Tribunal following its later decision affirming such jurisdiction; consequently, the challenge to the SCN's legality failed. Deliberate alteration of Bills of Lading after grant of LEO, to change the port of discharge and exploit Customs risk-assessment/facilitation parameters, was treated as fraud and therefore as misdeclaration in the Shipping Bills; accordingly, the conduct attracted Customs consequences. A company was held to fall within "person" under s.114 Customs Act by applying s.3 General Clauses Act; hence corporate liability was maintainable. However, absent proof of knowing abetment by the Customs broker or its employees, penalty under s.114(i) was held unsustainable and was set aside, leaving any lapse to CHALR proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784777