Export obligation compliance need not rest solely on EODC; other evidence may satisfy the exemption condition.

Compliance with export obligation under Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. could be proved by evidence other than an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, because the notification required evidence to the satisfaction of the proper officer and did not make the DGFT certificate an exclusive mandatory condition. A restrictive requirement not stated in the notification could not be added by interpretation. The Tribunal also found that the status of the export compliance and the effect of the DGFT remand order required fresh factual verification, so the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate was a mandatory condition under Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. for clearance of imported duty-free raw materials. (ii) Whether the matter required remand for verification of export and related subsequent developments.

Issue (i): Whether production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate was a mandatory condition under Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. for clearance of imported duty-free raw materials.

Analysis: The notification required the importer to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the proper officer that export obligation had been discharged. The certificate issued by DGFT was recognised only as one form of evidence. The condition of producing such certificate could not be read into the notification when the export could be established by other material as well. A restrictive condition not found in the notification could not be introduced by interpretation.

Conclusion: Production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate was not a mandatory condition under the notification.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for verification of export and related subsequent developments.

Analysis: The record showed that the DGFT proceedings had resulted in a remand for de novo consideration and the subsequent position was not clear. The Tribunal therefore considered it appropriate that the Commissioner examine the factum of export, the effect of the DGFT remand order, and any later development, while giving the appellant an opportunity to produce supporting evidence in respect of all advance licences.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh examination.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained relief on the legal requirement relating to EODC, and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration on the factual issue of export compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: A condition not expressly contained in an exemption notification cannot be added by interpretation, and compliance with export obligation may be proved by evidence other than a DGFT discharge certificate.

---