https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337887 Penalty for non-compliance with the export obligation under the Advance Licensing Scheme was upheld because the petitioners could not prove that the obligation had in fact been discharged. The court noted contradictory factual assertions on whether the exports were made by the petitioners or by another entity, and no satisfactory material was produced before the original authority or in appeal to establish fulfillment. In the absence of a bank realisation certificate and corroborative evidence, a new factual version could not be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The plea of substantial compliance was rejected on these facts, and the challenge failed. en-us Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337887 Penalty for non-compliance with the export obligation under the Advance Licensing Scheme was upheld because the petitioners could not prove that the obligation had in fact been discharged. The court noted contradictory factual assertions on whether the exports were made by the petitioners or by another entity, and no satisfactory material was produced before the original authority or in appeal to establish fulfillment. In the absence of a bank realisation certificate and corroborative evidence, a new factual version could not be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The plea of substantial compliance was rejected on these facts, and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337887