DEEC export obligation and third-party export endorsement required consideration before adverse adjudication

Exports by a supporting manufacturer were relevant to the appellants' DEEC export obligation, because the advance licence application disclosed the manufacturer as the place of production and the licensing authority had indicated willingness to endorse the DEEC book as third party exports. The impugned order was passed without considering these material facts and without allowing the appellants an opportunity to obtain the necessary endorsement, amounting to non-application of mind. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after permitting endorsement of the DEEC book.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exports effected by the supporting manufacturer could be considered for fulfillment of the appellants' export obligation under the DEEC scheme, and whether the matter required remand for enabling endorsement of the DEEC book.

Analysis: The appellants had disclosed in the advance licence application that the export order stood with the supporting manufacturer and the DEEC Part-A had been endorsed to show that manufacturer as the place of production. The licensing authority's subsequent correspondence also indicated willingness to endorse the DEEC book by treating the exports as third party exports. The impugned order was passed without giving effect to these material facts and without affording the appellants an opportunity to obtain the required endorsement, which amounted to non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The matter could not be finally decided against the appellants without considering the DEEC endorsement issue. The impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded for de novo adjudication after permitting the appellants to secure the endorsement of the DEEC book.

---