AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 15.7.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Custom House, New Delhi upholding the Order in original dated 30.12.2016 passed by the Joint Commissioner. The operative part of the order-in-original is as follows: ORDER (1) I deny the benefit of DEPB license No.- 0310687088 dated 20.03.2012 and confirm the Customs duty amounting to Rs. 3,05,997/- (Rupees Three Lakh Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Seven) under section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for import made under bill of entry No.- 6676015 dated 28.04.2012 by M/s. Whirlpool of India Ltd, and interest, at appropriate rate, thereof under section 28AA of the said Act. (2) I order for confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 11,71,096/- imported under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entive by the DGFT based on the exports made and these scrips can be used by the exporters to import goods claiming exemption from the customs duty (and debiting the amount equal to the duty from the scrip instead). Alternatively, they can sell these scrips in the market. In this case, M/s. Super Trading Co. to whom the scrips were issued sold them to the appellant for a consideration and the appellant used them to clear goods. 4. After the goods were cleared, it was discovered during an investigation that the Shipping Bills which M/s. Super Trading Co. produced to obtain the scrip were forged. Accordingly, DGFT cancelled the scrips ab initio. Thereafter, Customs issued a Show Cause Notice SCN dated 3.9.2015 to the appellant, to M/s. Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or title better than the exporter to whom the scrip was issued. He also asserts that fraud vitiates everything and once the ab initio cancellation of the DEPB scrip by the DGFT is not challenged, the consequences follow and the appellant cannot get an exemption de hors the scrip which it used to clear the goods without paying duty. Once the scrip itself is held is cancelled ab initio, neither M/s. Super Trading Co. to whom the scrip was issued nor the appellant who bought it can enjoy on the scrip obtained by fraud and based on forged Shipping Bills. 7. We have considered the submissions on both sides. Before examining the merits of the case, we proceed to examine the question of limitation because it is undisputed that the demand was m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd under erstwhile Section 28(1) of The Customs Act, 1962 alongwith applicable interest under Section 28AA of The Act. And whereas the exporter has fraudulently obtained the impugned DEPB authorisation on the basis of forged documents by resorting to mis-statement and mis-declaration, hence in the instant case the extended period of five years is invocable under the provisions of proviso to erstwhile Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for demanding the duty and interest thereof." 9. The submissions of the appellant in its reply to the SCN on the question of limitation was as follows: 6. Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked since no malafide intention of the Noticee 6.1. The impugned notice has been ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lusion, or (b) Any wilful mis-statement; or (c) Suppression of facts, by the importer..., the proper officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty..." "Explanation 1: For the purpose of this section, "relevant date" means- (i) In a case where duty is not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid, or interest is not charged, the date on which the proper officer makes an order for the clearance of the goods; (ii) ................. (iii) ................ (iv) In any other case, the date of payment of duty or interest." 6.4. From the perusal of the abovementioned provisions, it is evident that ex....