Customs Exemption Cannot Be Denied Due to DGFT Licence Reference to Another Notification

Centax Editorial Board

June 22, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Yash Oro India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import), New Delhi (2026) 43 Centax 104 (Tri.-Del)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

- Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- S/Shri Kishore Kunal, Ms Runjhun Pare & Govind Gupta, Advs., for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Ranjan Prakash & Nikhil Mohan Goyal, Authorised Representatives, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant imported gold dore bars from Tanzania under a valid DGFT licence, which stipulated that the imports would be subject to Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. The appellant, however, claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 96/2008-Cus., applicable to imports from Least Developed Countries. The Department alleged violation of the licence conditions and demanded customs duty, interest, penalty and redemption fine on the ground that the appellant was required to pay duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus.

CESTAT Held

The Tribunal held that the DGFT licence merely required compliance with Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. and did not prohibit the appellant from availing any other exemption otherwise available under law. Since the appellant’s eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 96/2008-Cus. was not disputed, the benefit thereof could not be denied merely because the licence referred to another notification. Further, Customs authorities could not question or disregard a valid and subsisting DGFT licence in the absence of any action by the DGFT. Accordingly, the demand of customs duty, along with interest, penalty and redemption fine, was set aside.

List of Cases Cited

- Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs — 2003 (151) E.L.T. 254 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 12, 29]
- Union of India v. Inter Continental (India) — 2008 (226) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 12]
- Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs — 2006 (194) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 12]
- Hind Plastics v. Collector of Customs — 1994 (71) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 12]
- Tasha Gold Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — W.P. (C) No. 1137 of 2023, decided on 06.07.2023 — Distinguished [Paras 13, 24]
- JSW Energy Ltd. v. Union of India — 2015 (321) E.L.T. 664 (Bom.) — Relied on [Para 22]
- Designco v. Union of India — (2026) 39 Centax 151 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 27, 28, 29]
- Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (342) E.L.T. 59 (Del.) — Referred [Para 28]
- Alstom India Ltd. v. Union of India — 2014 (301) E.L.T. 446 (Guj.) — Referred [Para 28]
- PTC Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 2010 (252) E.L.T. 42 (All.) — Referred [Para 28]
- Pradip Polyfils Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2004 (173) E.L.T. 3 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 28]
- Autolite (India) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2003 (157) E.L.T. 13 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 28]
- Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) v. Jupiter Exports — 2007 (213) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 28]