D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) This application under section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 has been pressed for admission on the grounds that: on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CEGAT having found the appellant not liable for any collusion or fraud in the issue of the DEPB scrips, it would not be liable to customs duty and the interest for alleged non-payment of the said duty though the DEPB licences have been held to be forged ones particularly when the learned CEGAT had failed to note and consider the relevant circular under which strict guidelines have been laid down for examining various factors and the tests before issuing DEPB when DEPB scrips are freely transferable and available in the market for purchase, by reason of its being verified, endorsed and signed by the Customs Authority.
(2.) Relying on the judgment of the learned CEGAT in Appeal No. C/358/ 2000-NB (D) by its final Order No. A/1001/2002-NB (D)/ dated 26th September, 2002, Dr. Pal contends that there is a finding that there was no collusion on the part of the appellant. Therefore, according to him, if no fraud or collusion is found on the part of the appellant, in that event, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the DEPB licences/scrips. Relying on the decision in United India Insurance Company vs. Lehru, 2003(3) SCC 338, Dr. Pal contends that it is just not possible for the appellant to verify the DEPB licences/scrips which is otherwise saleable, negotiable and available in the market and which the appellant had purchased bona fide for valuable consideration and utilized it for availing of the credit against its own import, stands in the same footing as a driving licence of the driver of the vehicle as it stood in the said case. Therefore, this is an important question of law that whether in the absence of any proof of collusion or fraud or absence of bona fide on the part of the appellant, the appellant could be deprived of the credit of the DEPB licences/scrips purchased by him bona fide for valuable consideration since found to be forged.
(3.) We have heard Dr. Pal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, at the stage of admission. Since the question is a pure question of law, we had also heard Mr. Sibdas Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents.;