Special export scheme compliance requires proof of delivery at the mandated destination despite FOB shipment terms

An exporter opting into a special export scheme must satisfy all scheme conditions, including proof that the goods reached the mandated destination. On the record, no reliable documentary evidence or Russian landing or discharge certificate was produced for the wheat flour consignments, so the alleged compliance was not established and the finding of contravention under the foreign exchange framework was upheld. The Tribunal also held that the appellate order was not cryptic, because it addressed the material issues, noted the penalty reduction, and explained why the penalties were maintained. The adverse findings and penalties were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants established compliance with the special export scheme and disproved the finding of contravention under the foreign exchange laws and RBI circulars; (ii) Whether the appellate order reducing the penalty and affirming the adjudication was cryptic or unsupported by reasons.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants established compliance with the special export scheme and disproved the finding of contravention under the foreign exchange laws and RBI circulars.

Analysis: The special scheme required exports to be made to the Russian Federation and the exporter opting into the scheme had to satisfy its specific conditions. The record showed no reliable documentary proof that the wheat flour consignments actually reached Russia, and no landing or discharge certificate from Russian authorities was produced. The fact that the exports were claimed to be on FOB basis did not displace the additional obligations arising from participation in the special scheme. The finding of contravention under the foreign exchange framework was therefore upheld.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention was affirmed and was against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order reducing the penalty and affirming the adjudication was cryptic or unsupported by reasons.

Analysis: The appellate order was found to have dealt with the material aspects of the case, noted the reduction of penalty from the original adjudication, and recorded why the penalties were maintained. The Tribunal held that the order was not a non-speaking order and that the reasoning was sufficient to sustain the conclusion reached.

Conclusion: The challenge to the appellate order on the ground of cryptic reasoning failed and was against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found no ground to interfere with the impugned order and maintained the adverse findings and penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: An exporter who elects to operate under a special export scheme must comply with all scheme conditions, and failure to prove delivery in the mandated destination permits affirmation of contravention even if the shipment was on FOB terms.

---