Corroborative export documents can cure missing AR-4 for rebate, but penalty may still stand for non-compliance.

Contemporaneous export records, including the excise invoice, packing list, sealed AR-4 copies, delivery challan, shipping bill, bill of lading and certificate of origin, were treated as sufficient corroboration to accept export and allow rebate despite non-production of the original Customs-endorsed AR-4, the omission being a curable procedural defect subject to verification. The penalty for failure to produce the original AR-4 was nevertheless upheld because the prescribed proof of export was not furnished in the required form, and the documentary corroboration did not nullify that penal consequence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether export could be accepted and rebate allowed on the basis of corroborative documentary evidence despite non-production of the original AR-4 bearing Customs endorsement; (ii) whether the penalty imposed for failure to produce the original AR-4 was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether export could be accepted and rebate allowed on the basis of corroborative documentary evidence despite non-production of the original AR-4 bearing Customs endorsement.

Analysis: The record contained multiple contemporaneous documents linking the consignment, including the excise invoice, packing list, sealed AR-4 copies, delivery challan, shipping bill, bill of lading and certificate of origin. These documents were treated as sufficient corroboration of export, and the absence of the original AR-4 was viewed as a curable procedural defect, subject to verification by the jurisdictional authority from the available duplicate and triplicate copies and, if necessary, the export records from the port.

Conclusion: The omission to furnish the original AR-4 was condoned for rebate purposes, subject to verification, and the matter was allowed to proceed on that basis in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty imposed for failure to produce the original AR-4 was sustainable.

Analysis: The authority held that, despite the documentary material, the applicants had not produced the proof of export in the form required by the procedure and could not, on that ground alone, challenge the penal consequence. The absence of the original Customs-endorsed AR-4 therefore did not exonerate them from penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order granted relief on the export-proof issue while maintaining the penalty, resulting in a modification of the appellate order in part.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural non-production of the original export document may be condoned when contemporaneous corroborative records sufficiently establish export, but such condonation does not automatically negate a penalty where the prescribed proof was not furnished.

---