https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789944 MEIS scrips issued by the DGFT and left unrevoked remained within the foreign trade regulatory domain, so customs authorities could not assume jurisdiction to proceed against the exporter or customs broker for alleged misuse merely because a different classification appeared in export documents. Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were inapplicable because the dispute did not involve import of goods or a demand for short-paid or short-levied duty. Penalty under Section 114AA also failed because a wrong classification, without proof of wilful false statement or mens rea, was insufficient. The Madras HC therefore answered the questions of law for the assessee and set aside the Tribunal's order. en-us Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Apr 2026 12:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789944 MEIS scrips issued by the DGFT and left unrevoked remained within the foreign trade regulatory domain, so customs authorities could not assume jurisdiction to proceed against the exporter or customs broker for alleged misuse merely because a different classification appeared in export documents. Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were inapplicable because the dispute did not involve import of goods or a demand for short-paid or short-levied duty. Penalty under Section 114AA also failed because a wrong classification, without proof of wilful false statement or mens rea, was insufficient. The Madras HC therefore answered the questions of law for the assessee and set aside the Tribunal's order. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789944