No Denial of SHIS Benefit if Zero-Duty Benefit Under EPCG Was Surrendered and Regularized by DGFT | CESTAT

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Case Chronicles

SHIS Benefits
Case Details: Nagreeka Exports Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata (2025) 27 Centax 1 (Tri.-Cal)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) & K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
  • S/Shri Sachin Chitnis & Siddhanth Sriram, Advs., for the Appellant.
  • Shri Faiz Ahmed, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, engaged in textile exports, applied for Status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS) benefits for the years 2009-10 to 2012-13. However, with the discontinuation of SHIS, the assessee availed the Zero Duty Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme in 2013-14. Subsequently, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) raised objections, citing the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2009-14, which prohibited simultaneous availing of both benefits. To address this, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) Public Notice No. 30/2016 and Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) Circular No. 45/2016 allowed the surrender of one benefit. The assessee relinquished EPCG benefits, deposited duty with interest, and obtained DGFT approval. Despite this, the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, denied SHIS benefits and raised a demand. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the order before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

CESTAT Held

The Hon’ble CESTAT held that the denial of SHIS benefits was legally unsustainable, as the DGFT and CBEC clarifications expressly permitted the surrender of EPCG benefits to avail SHIS. The assessee’s compliance with the prescribed procedure, including duty payment and DGFT approval, rendered the Customs Department’s refusal without jurisdiction. The Tribunal, therefore, quashed the demand and upheld the assessee’s right to claim SHIS benefits.

List of Cases Cited

List of Departmental Clarification Cited

  • D.G.F.T. Public Notice No. 30/2015-20, dated 8-9-2016 [Paras 2.1, 3, 3.2, 6]
  • C.B.E.C. Circular No. 45/2016-Cus., Dated 23-9-2016 [Paras 2.1, 3, 3.2, 6]

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
DGFT Removes TC Requirement for Organic Textile Exports

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Statutory Scope

August 2, 2025

DGFT Eases Export Norms for Pharma Grade Sugar with Post-Authorisation Edits

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Statutory Scope

July 24, 2025

DGFT Clarifies NPOP Not Applicable to Organic Textiles

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Statutory Scope

July 17, 2025

BIS Mark Not Required if Shipment Predates Quality Control Order | CESTAT

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Case Chronicles

July 16, 2025

HC Quashes Penalty on Director for Export Breach Due to Lack of Notice

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Case Chronicles

July 11, 2025

DGFT Notifies New SIONs for Azithromycin | Aldehyde C10 | Ceftazidime

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Statutory Scope

July 10, 2025

DGFT Issues Import Rules for LAM Coke (Jul–Dec 2025)

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Statutory Scope

July 4, 2025

DGFT Extends MIP on Soda Ash Imports Till Dec 31, 2025

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Statutory Scope

July 3, 2025

DGFT Imposes Port Restrictions on Jute Imports From Bangladesh

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Statutory Scope

June 30, 2025

DGFT Replaces SRTEPC with MATEXIL for Non-Preferential CoO

Foreign Trade Policy • News • Statutory Scope

June 27, 2025