HC Bars Section 28AAA Customs Recovery Without DGFT Finding

Centax Editorial Board

March 6, 2026

• 3 min. read

Case Details: Designco vs. Union of India (2026) 39 Centax 151 (Del.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Yashwant Varma & Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
S/Shri Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. with P.C. Patnaik, Hemant Mishra, Ms Ankita Sarangi, Madhav Bhatia, Shreshth Arya, Shreuss Shankar Joshi & Rohan Anand, Advs., for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Sunil & Rahul Kumar Sharma, Gokul Sharma, Tribhuvan, GPs & Aditya Singla, Satish Aggarwala, SSC along with Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC with Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Raghav Bakshi, Aman Tripathi, Ms Neha Aggarwala, Ms Pooja Bhaskar, Rajeev Kumar Mishra & Apoorva Singh, Advs, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Proceedings arose in relation to exporters of stone and marble handicraft articles who had classified their export goods under ITC (HS) 6815 99 90 falling within Heading 6815 of the Customs Tariff while availing benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20. The department subsequently alleged that the goods were classifiable under Heading 6802 of the Customs Tariff and sought recovery of MEIS benefits by invoking Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, without any prior adjudication by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act). It was contended that Section 28AAA operated at the junction of the Customs Act and the FTDR Act and that the determination of whether a scrip had been obtained by collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression lay with the competent authority empowered under the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. Reliance was placed on Para 2.57 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 to submit that the DGFT’s view on ITC (HS) classification was final and binding. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the exported articles had consistently been classified under ITC (HS) as adopted by the exporters, without any demur or protest being raised by the authorities. It was observed that the controversy regarding classification had been raised subsequently and that DGFT had neither ruled on the issue of classification nor expressed any doubt regarding eligibility to claim benefits under MEIS. The court further held that Para 2.57 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 made the DGFT’s view on ITC (HS) classification final and binding. In the absence of any finding relating to collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression, and without any determination by DGFT regarding the classification or validity of the scrip, the department could not question or go behind the MEIS scrip. Accordingly, the invocation of Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, for the recovery of MEIS benefits was held to be impermissible.

List of Cases Cited

Alstom India Ltd. v. Union of India — 2014 (301) E.L.T. 446 (Guj.) — Relied on [Paras 49, 108]
Autolite (India) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2003 (157) E.L.T. 13 (Bom.) — Relied on [Paras 52, 108]
BT (India) Private Limited v. Union of India — (2023) 13 Centax 89 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 73]
Commissioner v. Canon India Pvt. Ltd — 2024 (390) E.L.T. 545 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 60]
Commissioner v. Jupiter Exports — 2007 (213) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.) — Relied on [Paras 53, 108]
Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) — (2014) 9 SCC 105 — Referred [Paras 35, 36]
ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 71, 73]
Metal Forgings and Another v. Union of India — 2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 35]
Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2011 (266) E.L.T. 422 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 96]
PTC Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 2010 (252) E.L.T. 42 (All.) — Relied on [Paras 51, 108]
Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (342) E.L.T. 59 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 50, 108]
Titan Medical Systems (P) Ltd. v. Collector — 2003 (151) E.L.T. 254 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 47, 52, 108]
Zuari Industries Limited v. Commissioner — 2007 (210) E.L.T. 648 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 45, 46]

List of Departmental Clarification Cited

Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva Public Notice No. 57/2019, dated 19-6-2019 [Paras 1, 20, 22, 32, 62, 111, 116]
DGFT Public Notice No. 2/2015-20 [Paras 9, 10]