Actual export for duty concession on earmarked sugar; differential duty, extended limitation, and penalty were upheld.

Duty concession for earmarked sugar was conditional on actual export through the export agency or as directed by it. As no quantity from the allotted quota was exported or handed over to the export agency, and the certificate produced did not establish actual export, the demand for differential duty was sustained. The absence of acceptable independent proof also justified invocation of the extended limitation period, and penalty was upheld as legally proper on the same factual basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of differential duty, invocation of the extended period, and imposition of penalty were sustainable where the assessee failed to export the allotted quota of sugar and failed to produce acceptable proof of actual export.

Analysis: The duty concession was available only against actual export of the earmarked sugar through the export agency or as directed by it. On the facts found, no quantity of sugar had been exported out of the allotted quota and no quantity had been handed over to the export agency. The certificate relied upon by the assessee was not accepted as it did not actual export of the quantity in dispute, and no independent evidence of export was produced. The findings supporting demand, extended limitation, and penalty were held to be legal and proper.

Conclusion: The demand, extended period, and penalty were upheld against the assessee.

---