TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by which the order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs has been upheld and appeal has been dismissed. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, by the said order dated 28.05.2015, rejected the FOB value of the goods exported in two shipping bills under rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of the Export Goods) Rules, 2007 [the 2007 Rules] and ordered for re-determination of the goods under rule 6 of the 2007 Rules read with section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act] In respect of the imported goods, the Additional Commissioner also denied the benefit of DEPB license purchased by the appellant, on the basis of which two Bills of Entry dated 26.02.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imports affected against the impugned DEPB scrips were liable to the duty and penalty as confirmed by the Original Authority. Secondly, whether extended period of demand is justifiable in the case? 8. The appellant's contention in their defence is similar in content and tone. Their main contentions are that they were not aware of the fraud and they were genuine purchaser of DEPB. They further pleaded that DEPB scrips were valid on the respective dates of import of goods and subsequent cancellation of the licenses do not make imports unauthorized. They referred to many case laws in support of their contention that they are not liable to pay the fine and penalty and that is the demand of duty is time barred and extended period c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the impugned order. 10. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative for the department have been considered. 11. It is not in dispute that the scrips that were purchased by the appellant were obtained by the seller of scrips on the basis of fraudulent documents. There is no finding in the impugned order that scrips were not genuine or had not been issued by the DGFT. 12. This issue was precisely considered by a Division Bench of this Tribunal in Apar Industries and after referring to various decisions, including the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High in Friends Trading Co., the Tribunal observed as follows: "30. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the licence/DEPB scrip or TRAs have not been issued by the DGFT and the same have been found to be fake or forged. In such a situation, customs duty exemption would not be available either to the original licence holder or to the transferee importer. ***** 35. The submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that the facts in dispute are the same as that in the decision of the Tribunal in Deep Exports and so the appellant would be entitled to all the favourable consequence that follows is justified. This decision, as set out above, has comprehensively examined all relevant decisions and provides appropriate benchmark on entitlement to retain the privilege of exemption arising from use of transferred scrips that, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scrip/license. As long as the scrip/license issued by the licensing authority is valid, being not cancelled, even if the same had been obtained by fraudulent means, the beneficiary of such document cannot be denied with the benefit of duty-free import of goods, as long as such scrip/license is valid. In the case in hand, the appellants had purchased the scrips/licenses from the persons, who were recognized by the licensing authorities as the exporter of the goods and upon subjective verification, the same were issued in their favour by the competent authorities. Thus, under such circumstances, even if the said documents were obtained by the main beneficiary by adopting to the fraudulent means or practices, it cannot be questioned at the sta....