2026 (4) TMI 713

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is engaged in the manufacture and sale of vacuum circuit breakers, disconnectors and other engineering goods. On receiving an export order from the foreign buyer at Malaysia, the petitioner sought an advance licence to import raw materials for the fulfilment of its export obligation. The same was granted to the writ petitioner vide order dated 26.06.1997 and 31.03.1997. 2.The writ petitioner was unable to fulfil the export obligation in full and sought for extension of time which was also granted. However, even after the extension of time, it was not able to complete the export obligation in full. Consequently, the orderin- original came to be passed on 02.08.2004 by the Adjudicating Authority, which reads as below: "9. The Not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ount as pre-condition to entertain the appeal and consequently, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.10.2005. 4. The operative portion of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.10.2005 reads as below: "5.I have gone through the facts of the case available on record and the submissions made by the appellant in the appeal. So far as registration of case with BIFR, is concerned, I am amazed as to how two cases of the same company are registered, one in the year 2000 and another in 2003. The proceedings before me are in respect of the licence taken by the appellant company on 26.06.1997, export obligation period of which expired on 31.12.1998. Hence, these proceedings pertains to the period prior to the company going to B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... record that the appellant was facing financial hardship and already been referred to BIFR, the said hardship has not been considered. Secondly, the learned counsel also ventured to canvass that any un-fulfillment of export obligation will not per se attract penal action under Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and for the said un-fulfillment export obligation, the Department ought to have resorted to the provision of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of differential duty. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Department would submit that the first limb of the argument placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no legs to stand, sin....