Strict proof of export documents required; unverified copies cannot replace prescribed originals, and duty, interest and penalty were sustained.

Original export proof was required in the form of AR-4 documents in sealed cover from Customs, together with attested shipping bill and bill of lading copies, and xerox or other unauthenticated papers were insufficient to satisfy that statutory requirement. The governing export procedure and bond conditions had to be strictly complied with, and no legal basis existed to substitute unverified copies as collateral evidence. The limitation objection and the plea based on expiry of the bond were treated as having been considered and rejected by the lower authorities, so no interference was warranted. The demand of duty, interest and penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision applications were maintainable on the basis of xerox copies and other unverified documents to prove export and overcome the statutory requirement of original export documents, and whether the demand, interest and penalty could be interfered with on the grounds of limitation and expiry of the bond.

Analysis: The Government found that the required original and duplicate AR-4 documents in sealed cover from Customs, along with attested shipping bill and bill of lading copies, were not produced as mandated by the governing export procedure under the Central Excise Rules and the relevant notification. The xerox and other unauthenticated papers produced in support were held insufficient, since there was no legal basis to substitute them for the prescribed original documents even as collateral evidence. The Government also agreed with the lower authorities that the statutory conditions attached to the bond and export clearance procedure had not been met, and upheld the view that strict adherence to the governing terms was necessary. The limitation plea and other objections were treated as having been considered and rejected by the lower authorities, with no ground made out for interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of export proof failed, and the demand of duty, interest and penalty was sustained.

---