Judicial Decisions On Forged Tariff Exemption Papers
1. Munjal Showa Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Supreme Court of India, 2022)
Facts:
The company claimed customs duty exemption using scrips/licences that were later found to be forged.
These scrips were supposed to be issued by a government agency to allow tariff exemption for certain imported inputs.
Legal Issues:
Whether exemption can be claimed on forged or fake scrips.
Whether the importer’s claim of innocence or good faith affects duty liability.
Court’s Reasoning:
Forged documents are void ab initio; any benefit derived is invalid.
The principle “fraud vitiates everything” applies.
Extended limitation can be applied for recovery of duty in cases involving forgery.
Outcome:
Exemption claim rejected; customs duty, interest, and penalties upheld.
The case set a precedent that forged tariff exemption documents provide no legal protection.
2. Trinetra Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Delhi Customs Tribunal, 2017)
Facts:
The company submitted “exemption certificates” for imported goods that were forged.
The certificates were supposedly signed by a competent government authority but were fake.
Legal Issues:
Can a customs house agent (CHA) plead ignorance or good faith if forged documents are submitted on behalf of the importer?
Whether duty exemption can be allowed if the exemption certificate is invalid.
Tribunal Reasoning:
CHAs must exercise due diligence; acting as a mere conduit does not absolve responsibility.
Forged certificates cannot be used to claim exemption; duty and penalties are valid.
Outcome:
Customs duty demand upheld, penalties imposed on CHA and importer.
3. Raja Ram & Company vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT, 2025)
Facts:
Imports cleared using scrips found to be forged or non-existent in the customs system.
Show-cause notices issued demanding duty and penalties.
Legal Issues:
Can importers claim exemption if they were unaware of the forgery?
Is extended limitation applicable in cases of fraud?
Tribunal Reasoning:
Ignorance of the forgery does not protect the importer.
“Fraud vitiates everything”; duty exemption is denied.
Extended limitation and penalties applicable.
Outcome:
Customs duty demand confirmed; exemption rejected.
4. Apar Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (2025)
Facts:
Scrips/licences appeared genuine but were obtained on the basis of forged supporting documents.
Legal Issues:
Whether exemption benefit is available if the licence is genuine but derived from fraudulent documents.
Tribunal Reasoning:
Even if scrips look genuine, if underlying documents are forged, exemption cannot be allowed.
Authorities can deny exemption and recover duty with interest and penalty.
Outcome:
Exemption rejected; duty and penalties confirmed.
5. Nidhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT, 2022)
Facts:
Imports cleared via a clearing agent who used forged scrips; importer claimed ignorance.
Legal Issues:
Can the importer avoid liability by claiming they did not forge documents themselves?
Are they responsible for verification of documents submitted by agents?
Tribunal Reasoning:
Beneficiary of forged documents is liable, even if they did not commit forgery.
Caveat emptor (buyer beware) principle applies; due diligence required.
Outcome:
Duty and penalties upheld; exemption denied.
6. Bimal Paper Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Facts:
Imports cleared on manipulated scrips by intermediaries, even though the importer claimed no direct involvement.
Legal Issues:
Does indirect or derivative use of forged scrips protect the importer?
Tribunal Reasoning:
Indirect benefit from forged documents does not absolve liability.
Duty and penalty demand is valid under customs law.
Outcome:
Exemption rejected; duty and penalties imposed.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Forged documents/licences are void ab initio; no exemption can be claimed.
Fraud vitiates everything — even indirect benefit leads to liability.
Good faith or ignorance is not a defence.
Due diligence is required from importers and intermediaries; lack of verification can lead to penalties.
Extended limitation periods can be applied for recovery of duty in cases of fraud.
Caveat emptor: importers must verify authenticity of documents.
RELATED Blog
{!! (isset($postDetail['review_mapping']) && count($postDetail['review_mapping']) > 0 ? count($postDetail['review_mapping']) : 0) }} comments