Export obligation extension denied where no prejudice was shown and non-fulfilment continued for an extended period.

Refusal to grant a further extension of the export obligation period was upheld because the record showed that the earlier licence endorsement already reflected the appellate order granting extension, and the alleged failure to record permission for alternate exports was unsupported by the record. The challenge to the remand procedure also failed because no prejudice was shown from the absence of a fresh notice, and there was no evidence that any attempt had been made to export an alternate product. The prolonged delay and continued non-fulfilment of the export obligation further supported rejection of the request for additional time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to grant a further extension of the export obligation period, and the alleged omission to expressly record permission for export of an alternate product or issue a fresh notice on remand, warranted interference.

Analysis: The earlier endorsement on the licence was held to reflect the appellate order granting extension, and the plea that permission for alternate exports was omitted was contrary to the record. The appellant had not shown that any attempt was made to export an alternate product or that the absence of a fresh notice on remand caused any prejudice. In the absence of prejudice, the challenge to the remand procedure could not affect the refusal of further extension. The long lapse of time and continued non-fulfilment of the export obligation also supported the rejection of the request.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant further extension was upheld and the appeal failed.

---