Export obligation penalty upheld where no bank realisation certificate or reliable proof showed compliance under the Advance Licensing Scheme.

Penalty for non-compliance with the export obligation under the Advance Licensing Scheme was upheld because the petitioners could not prove that the obligation had in fact been discharged. The court noted contradictory factual assertions on whether the exports were made by the petitioners or by another entity, and no satisfactory material was produced before the original authority or in appeal to establish fulfillment. In the absence of a bank realisation certificate and corroborative evidence, a new factual version could not be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The plea of substantial compliance was rejected on these facts, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for non-compliance with the export obligation under the Advance Licensing Scheme could be interfered with on the ground of alleged fulfillment of the export obligation and substantial compliance.

Analysis: The petitioners' case was found to rest on contradictory factual assertions as to who actually exported the goods and whether the export obligation stood discharged by the petitioner or by another entity. No satisfactory supporting material was produced before the original authority or in appeal to show that the export obligation had been fulfilled. In the absence of the bank realisation certificate and other corroborative evidence, a new factual version could not be introduced for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The plea of substantial compliance was also held inapplicable on these facts.

Conclusion: The penalty for non-compliance with the export obligation was upheld and the challenge failed.

---