Procedural omission in export documentation cannot defeat advance authorisation redemption where corroborative records prove SEZ supplies.

Contemporaneous, officially endorsed documents can substantiate supplies to a SEZ unit under advance authorisation even where a bill of export was not filed. The court treated the omission as a procedural defect because the ARE-1 forms, Certificates of Receipt of Supply, and related purchase and invoice details sufficiently correlated the supplies with the authorisations and showed that no drawback had been claimed. On that basis, the rejection of relaxation was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of redemption of the advance authorisations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the requirement of filing the bill of export for supplies made to a SEZ unit under advance authorisation could be condoned on production of ARE-1 forms and a certified Certificate of Receipt of Supply, and whether such material was sufficient to direct redemption of the advance authorisations.

Analysis: The petitioner had supplied goods to the SEZ against advance authorisations and produced ARE-1 forms endorsed by the customs authorities at the SEZ unit together with Certificates of Receipt of Supply containing the relevant authorisation details, purchase order particulars, invoice references and product details. The certificates were also endorsed by the statutory authorities. The refusal rested on non-filing of bills of export and absence of the authorisation number in the ARE-1 forms. In view of the earlier relaxation practice under the Foreign Trade Policy and the reasoning that the supplies to SEZ were otherwise duly evidenced, the insistence on the bill of export in the circumstances was treated as a hyper-technical objection. The material on record was sufficient to correlate the supplies with the advance authorisations and to verify that no drawback had been claimed.

Conclusion: The requirement of filing the bill of export was liable to be condoned on the basis of the corroborative documents, and the petitioner was entitled to reconsideration of redemption of the advance authorisations on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to grant relaxation was set aside, the matter was sent back for fresh examination of the supporting documents, and the petitioner obtained relief against the impugned rejection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where compliance with the export obligation is otherwise established by contemporaneous and officially endorsed corroborative documents, a purely procedural omission such as non-filing of the bill of export cannot defeat redemption under the Foreign Trade Policy.

---