Export procedure breach treated as technical where genuine exports were undisputed and no diversion was shown.

The expression "twelve calendar months" in Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) was construed as ending on 31 December of the year of issue, so an undertaking executed in January 2012 remained valid only until 31 December 2012. Even so, where the goods were admittedly exported and the exports were genuine, the procedural lapse in making exports after expiry of the undertaking was treated as technical only. The purpose of the requirement was to prevent diversion of goods under the guise of export, and that purpose was not defeated on the facts. Duty demand and consequential penal detriment were therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demand and consequential penal detriment were sustainable where exports were made after expiry of the undertaking, in the context of the expression "twelve calendar months" in Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26th June 2001.

Analysis: The expression "twelve calendar months" was construed to mean a period ending with 31st December of the year of issue, so the undertaking executed in January 2012 remained valid only till 31st December 2012. However, the goods cleared during the disputed period were admittedly exported, and the purpose of the procedure was only to prevent diversion of goods under the guise of exports. Since the exports were genuine and had already been subjected to scrutiny, the lapse was only technical and did not justify levy of duty.

Conclusion: The demand of duty and consequential penal detriment was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement governing exports cannot be enforced to the detriment of a genuine exporter when the exports are undisputed and the breach is only technical in nature.

---