Subsequent export obligation discharge certificate must be considered on merits; technical objections alone cannot defeat customs relief.

Where a competent export obligation discharge certificate is produced after earlier customs orders, relief should not be refused solely because those orders remain operative or an earlier appeal was withdrawn. The Court held that the certificate had to be examined on merits, since the claim had not been rejected on substantive grounds. It accordingly set aside the impugned adjudication and appellate orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, with direction to release the bank guarantee if the certificate was found in order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned customs adjudication and appellate orders refusing to release the bank guarantee could be set aside and the matter remitted for consideration of the export obligation discharge certificate produced by the importer.

Analysis: The importer had obtained the export obligation discharge certificate from the competent authority, though after the earlier adjudication and appeal. The first respondent had not rejected the claim on merits but had declined relief because the orders against the importer were still in force and the earlier appeal had been withdrawn. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner should not be denied consideration merely on technical grounds and that the certificate had to be examined on its merits. To secure proper consideration of the claim and consequential relief, the impugned orders required interference.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the first respondent to examine the export obligation discharge certificate and, if found in order, to release the bank guarantee.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained a fresh consideration of its EPCG compliance claim, and the customs authorities were directed to decide the request on the basis of the certificate produced.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a competent discharge certificate is subsequently produced and the claim has not been rejected on merits, relief should not be denied solely because earlier orders remain operative or an appeal was withdrawn; the matter may be remitted for substantive consideration.

---