Export drawback cannot be recovered for delayed realisation alone when export proceeds are fully realised and verified.

Export drawback could not be denied where the export proceeds were ultimately realised in full and the bank realisation certificates were accepted on verification. Delay in receiving part of the proceeds beyond the prescribed period was treated as a procedural lapse, not a failure of the substantive export and realisation requirement. As no revenue loss was shown and the beneficial export incentive scheme was otherwise satisfied, technical non-compliance was held insufficient to justify recovery of the drawback amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether drawback demand could be sustained where the export proceeds were ultimately realized in full, but part of the realization occurred beyond the prescribed time limit, and whether such delay justified recovery of the drawback amount.

Analysis: The export proceeds were found to have been realized in full and the bank realization certificates were accepted on verification. The dispute was confined to delay in realization of two amounts beyond the prescribed period. The delay did not affect the fact of realization, no revenue loss was shown, and the matter was treated as a procedural lapse in an export incentive scheme. Beneficial export-related provisions were held not to be defeated by technical non-compliance where the substantive requirement of actual export and realization stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The drawback demand was not sustainable and the revenue appeal failed.

---