Mandatory value addition conditions under customs approval were enforceable, and discrimination could not excuse non-compliance.

Value addition conditions in an approval letter and the corresponding customs notification were treated as mandatory where the importer had accepted the terms and executed the prescribed bond; compliance with the export obligation and related conditions was therefore enforceable. The notice for penalty and customs demand was not treated as premature, because the facts showed the importer had already exhausted the imported components and had achieved only limited production and value addition before expiry of the stipulated period, with no prejudice shown from the timing. A discrimination plea based on alleged non-compliance in other cases did not excuse breach of the importer's own obligations, and comparative illegality could not confer a right to disregard the applicable requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value addition condition stipulated in the approval letter and EXIM policy was mandatory and enforceable against the importer. (ii) Whether action for penalty and customs demand was premature because it was taken before expiry of the stipulated one-year period. (iii) Whether the petitioner could avoid liability on the ground of alleged discrimination from other similarly placed cases.

Issue (i): Whether the value addition condition stipulated in the approval letter and EXIM policy was mandatory and enforceable against the importer.

Analysis: The policy required importers to regulate imports so as to satisfy the value-added criterion on which the project was approved, and the Development Commissioner was required to verify compliance. The customs notification also required the importer, through the bond executed in prescribed form, to fulfill the export obligation and the conditions of the notification. The approval letter did not travel beyond the policy or the notification.

Conclusion: The value addition condition was mandatory and binding on the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether action for penalty and customs demand was premature because it was taken before expiry of the stipulated one-year period.

Analysis: On the facts, the petitioner had already exhausted the imported components and had achieved only a small part of the required production and value addition well before the expiry of the first year. Even if further time had been granted, the petitioner was not in a position to meet the stipulated threshold, and no prejudice was shown from the timing of the action.

Conclusion: The action was not vitiated as premature.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner could avoid liability on the ground of alleged discrimination from other similarly placed cases.

Analysis: A plea of unequal treatment cannot be used to claim the benefit of another's alleged non-compliance. Any apparent lapse in another case would not entitle the petitioner to disregard the legal requirements applicable to its own case.

Conclusion: The discrimination plea failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty and customs demand failed in full, and no relief was warranted on the facts or law applied.

Ratio Decidendi: Conditions of approval and the corresponding customs notification are enforceable where the importer has accepted them and executed the prescribed bond, and a plea of comparative illegality does not confer a right to non-compliance.

---