Export obligation penalties set aside where aquaculture became impossible due to environmental ban and viral attack.

Penalties for failure to fulfil an export obligation were held unsustainable where aquaculture operations became impossible because of an environmental ban and a viral attack affecting shrimp production. The tribunal applied prior decisions treating non-fulfilment caused by circumstances beyond the assessee's control as distinct from deliberate default, and found that the same reasoning governed the facts here. The penalties were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalties were sustainable where the assessee failed to fulfil export obligation because aquaculture operations were rendered impossible by environmental prohibition and viral attack.

Analysis: The assessee's failure to achieve the export commitment was found to arise from circumstances beyond its control, namely the ban on aquaculture and the viral attack affecting shrimp production. In similar matters, penalties had been set aside when non-fulfilment was attributable to such impossibility rather than deliberate default. On the facts, the same reasoning was applied, and the prior line of decisions was treated as binding.

Conclusion: The penalties were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---