Court dismisses writ petition challenging export obligation violation, allows payment in instalments

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging a demand notice for violation of export obligation due to the petitioner's failure to renew permissions and bank guarantee. The appeal, filed out of time, was rejected for not addressing merits. The court allowed the petitioner to pay the liability in 12 monthly instalments, emphasizing the importance of following procedural requirements and presenting arguments timely.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of demand notice for violation of export obligation.
2. Renewal of bank guarantee and appeal filed out of time.
3. Consideration of case based on merit in writ petition.
4. Request for instalment facility to discharge liability.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a 100% export-oriented unit, was granted a Letter of Permission (LOP) for processing and export of buffalo meat and tapioca, along with a Private Bonded Warehouse license. Both permissions expired as they were not renewed. The petitioner imported Capital Goods eligible for duty exemption based on export commitment but failed to fulfill the obligation, leading to a notice of demand (Ext.P11) for violation of conditions. The petitioner challenges this demand notice in the writ petition.

2. The duty in question is covered by a bank guarantee provided by the petitioner, which was not renewed. The petitioner's appeal, filed out of time, was unsuccessful as the appellate authority did not consider the issue on merits. The court notes that the petitioner is now attempting to present a case based on merit, arguing that there was no error in the decision-making process. However, the court emphasizes that all arguments raised in the writ petition could have been presented during the appeal process. As the appeal was dismissed due to limitation, the petitioner cannot raise grounds that could have been addressed in the appeal through a writ petition. Consequently, since there is no error in the decision-making process, the writ petition is dismissed.

3. Despite dismissing the writ petition, the court acknowledges the petitioner's request for an instalment facility to discharge the liability. In response to this submission, the court grants permission for the petitioner to settle the liability in 12 monthly instalments starting from the following month. This decision aims to provide the petitioner with a feasible method to fulfill the obligation.

4. Therefore, the court's judgment concludes by dismissing the writ petition while allowing the petitioner to discharge the liability through monthly instalments. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and presenting all relevant arguments during the appropriate stages of legal proceedings.

---