AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....classified under CTSH36050090 for a FOB value of Rs. 5,73,80,848/-. The shipping bills were filed under claim for benefit under MEIS scheme. Under this scheme, the exporter is eligible to get MEIS scrips based on the FOB value realized, which is issued by the DGFT authorities. This MEIS groups is freely tradable in the market and an importer, who purchases them can use it for payment of customs duties on the import of any goods by them. 3. In respect of the above exports, it was duly assessed and cleared by the customs department and the exporter also received MEIS scrips to the extent of Rs. 11,47,617/- from the DGFT authorities. 4. The officers attached to SIIB of the Tuticorin customs conducted an enquiry with the exporter for whom the appellant had filed 32 shipping bills. Notice was issued and explanation was sought for on the ground that there was excess availment of MEIS benefits, since a wrong classification had been indicated in the application. 5. On conclusion of enquiry, while issuing notices to the exporter and the importer, notice was also issued to the appellant, who are customs brokers for imposition of penalties under section 114 and 114AA of the Customs A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the exporter and also when the express provision contained in the said section did not at all attracted the case of the appellant in the admitted facts of the case? 11. This Court heard the learned counsel on either side on the above substantial questions of law framed by this court. 12. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant filed the shipping bills indicating CTSH as 36050090 for the machine made safety matches exported on the basis of the instructions and advice of the exporter. The officers of the customs of Tuticorin port accepted the same along with the similarly placed exports and granted the permission. 13. It was further submitted that MEIS benefits/rewards are given by the Ministry of Commerce/DGFT under the Foreign Trade policy to the exporter. The foreign trade office has not raised any dispute with regard to the correct classification of the goods or initiated any proceedings in this matter against the exporter, who have been granted the scrips. However, the customs authority on the assumption that the exporter had made a wrong classification to claim additional or extra benefit has overstepped their j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value of the indigenous components which would be used in the manufacture. Undoubtedly, while applying for a license, the appellants set out the components they would use and their value. However, the value was only on estimate. It is not the respondents' case that the components were not used. The only case is that the value which had been indicated in the application was very large whereas what was actually spent was a paltry amount. To be noted that the licensing authority having taken no steps to cancel the license. The licensing authority have not claimed that there was any misrepresentation. Once an adverse license was issued and not questioned by the licensing authority, the customs authorities cannot refuse exemption on an allegation that there was misrepresentation. If there was any misrepresentation, it was the licensing authority to take steps in that behalf." 19. The above judgment of the Supreme Court was considered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Nitta Geletin India Ltd., v. Commissioner of Customs in Customs Appeal No.2/2025 by order dated 26.06.2025. That was also a case where an incorrect classification was given by the exporter, who had a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have a contention that the items imported earlier and now were, in any manner different, except for the differential description of the same in the import documents. It is presumably by noting that the item imported was the same that the authorities under the advance authorization scheme did not view the imports of the same goods under a different name as a breach by the assessee of any of the conditions of the advance authorization granted to them. We also note that under the advance authorization scheme, whether the goods are classifiable under Chapter 5 or Chapter 35, they are liable to only a nil rate of duty so long as they are covered by the advance authorization scheme. 9. It is against the backdrop of the above factual position that we need to consider the case of the Revenue that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No.96/2009 dated 11.09.2009 that granted the benefit of nil rate of duty in respect of inputs imported under the advance authorization scheme. In view of the discussion above, we have to hold that in as much as the classification of the imported items had no bearing on the legality of imports for the purposes of the advance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al assessment), there is no justification for demanding a differential duty payment for the latter transactions alone. We are also told at the time of hearing by the learned senior counsel Sri.V.Sridharan that during the period subsequent to the period covered by the show cause notice, the assessee has obtained advance authorization for importing the same product this time under the nomenclature 'decalcified fish scale' and no objection has been taken by the Revenue to such import. We are of the view that the imports effected by the assessee had to be seen as covered by the notification aforementioned that permitted an import at nil rate of duty so long as the goods were imported in terms of the advance authorization scheme. In the absence of any objection by the licensing authority or cancellation of the advance authorization, the Department could not have denied the benefit of the notification to the assessee. We therefore allow Customs Appeal No.2 of 2025 preferred by the assessee and dismiss Customs Appeal No.5 of 2024 preferred by the Revenue." 20. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the exporter was granted MEIS scrips by the DGFT under the forei....