TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether supplies made to a Special Economic Zone unit under an Advance Authorisation could be accepted as discharge of export obligation despite non-submission of the Bill of Export, when other corroborative documents were available; (ii) Whether the Policy Relaxation Committee's rejection of the redemption request was liable to be quashed and the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate directed to be issued.
Issue (i): Whether supplies made to a Special Economic Zone unit under an Advance Authorisation could be accepted as discharge of export obligation despite non-submission of the Bill of Export, when other corroborative documents were available.
Analysis: The Foreign Trade Policy treated supplies to a Special Economic Zone unit as a form of deemed export, and the competent authority had already relaxed the requirement of filing a Bill of Export for such supplies made prior to 1 July 2017. The Court relied on the settled position that where proof of supply to the Special Economic Zone is available through corroborative documents such as ARE-1, endorsement by the jurisdictional authorities, evidence of receipt, and proof of payment, non-filing of the Bill of Export is only a procedural lapse and does not, by itself, establish failure to discharge export obligation.
Conclusion: The absence of the Bill of Export was not fatal, and the export obligation could not be treated as unfulfilled solely on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the Policy Relaxation Committee's rejection of the redemption request was liable to be quashed and the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate directed to be issued.
Analysis: The impugned refusal proceeded only on the missing Bill of Export, despite the later policy circular relaxing that requirement and despite the availability of alternate evidence. The Court held that the rejection could not survive in law. It therefore quashed the impugned minutes and directed issuance of the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, subject to submission and verification of the specified corroborative documents within the time granted.
Conclusion: The impugned rejection was set aside and relief was granted in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the impugned policy-relaxation decisions were annulled, and the petitioner was entitled to redemption relief on production and verification of the stipulated supporting documents.
Ratio Decidendi: Where supplies to a Special Economic Zone unit are otherwise proved by reliable corroborative evidence and the competent authority has relaxed the Bill of Export requirement, non-submission of that document cannot, by itself, defeat discharge of export obligation under an Advance Authorisation scheme.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
