Pankaj Chordia Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that the DEPB scrips issued by the DGFT cannot be held ab initio null and void by the DRI or any other Customs Officers. Accordingly, confirmation of the demand under section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the impugned order is without any authority of law.
Facts- DRI received intelligence that Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma and Shri Ajay Sharma of M/s J. Minakshi International, M/s JAY ESS International and Ms. J. Kanishka International were misusing export promotion schemes, namely, drawback and DEPB by filing false declarations as per Annexure-I and Annexure-II of CBEC Circular No. 54/2001 dated 19.10.2001 in order to get higher All Industry Rate of drawback. The intelligence also indicated that the aforesaid exporters had filed duplicate Currency Declaration Forms in the banks, deposited foreign currency in their own accounts, and based on such deposits obtained Bank Realization Certificates.
The conclusion of the DRI’s investigation was that the three exporters – Minakshi, JAY ESS and Kanishka had mis-declared in Annexure I & II filed along with shipping bills and thereby availed ineligible drawback which was recoverable from them.
Notably, the question of drawback is not before this court in these appeals and the only questions to be decided are the confirmation of demand of duty and the imposition of penalties. It is also to be decided that whether the Commissioner was correct in holding in the impugned order that the DEPB scrips issued by DGFT were ab initio null and void and, therefore, duty has to be paid by the importers who used them.
