Customs Cannot Recover Duty After DGFT Discharge | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

DGFT Export Obligation
Case Details: L.R.C. Speciality Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Raigad (2025) 36 Centax 295 (Tri.-Bom) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • S/Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (J) & C J Mathew, Member (T)
  • Shri Vinay S Sejpal, Adv., for the appellants
  • Shri Krishna Azad, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for the respondent

Facts of the Case

The appellant-assessee imported goods duty-free under the Foreign Trade Policy, subject to fulfilment of export obligation, and the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) subsequently issued an export obligation discharge certificate acknowledging completion of such obligation. Despite the discharge of export obligation in the records of the licensing authority, Customs authorities initiated proceedings alleging that the duty-free imported goods had been transferred to another entity and used for the manufacture of goods cleared for domestic consumption. On that basis, Customs invoked Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 to seek confiscation, fine in lieu of confiscation, and recovery of duty foregone along with interest. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 

CESTAT Held

The CESTAT held that once the export obligation stood discharged in the records of the DGFT, the jurisdiction of Customs to re-examine compliance with export obligation ceased to subsist. The Tribunal held that the issuance of an export obligation discharge certificate by the licensing authority precluded Customs from alleging violation of export obligation conditions. It was held that in such circumstances, invocation of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation or for recovery of duty foregone and interest was not sustainable. The Tribunal accordingly held that the proceedings initiated by Customs were without jurisdiction and allowed the appeals. 

List of Cases Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Related Stories
CBIC Notifies Bhogapuram as Customs Airport

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 17, 2026

CBIC Updates Tariff Values For Edible Oils And Metals

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 15, 2026

Acrylonitrile For Rubber Use Not Covered By Insecticides Act

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 15, 2026

COFEPOSA Detention Quashed For Ignoring Bail Parity | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 14, 2026

Vehicle Seizure Upheld As Source of Funds Not Proved

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 13, 2026

Aluminium Mushroom Shelves Classified Under CTI 76109010 | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 12, 2026

Seized Gold to Be Released Due to Delay in SCN | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 9, 2026

Look Out Circular Cannot Continue Without Review | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 8, 2026

Only DGFT Can Cancel DEPB Scrips, Not Customs CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 6, 2026

SCMTR Declaration Deadline Extended to 31 March 2026 | CBIC Notification 79/2025

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 5, 2026