Failure to produce authenticated documents to prove the fulfillment of export obligation under the advance license can lead to the imposition of penalties under the FTDR Act, 1992.

G. ROHINI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.05.2016 in W.P.(C) No.8417/2015. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant before us.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

3. As could be seen from the material available on record, the appellant/writ petitioner was granted an advance licence dated 22.12.1999 under Duty Exemption Scheme under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (for short 'FTDR Act'). As per the conditions of the licence, the appellant was required to complete the export obligation of Rs.1,07,58,600/- as Free On Board (FOB) value within a period of 18 months from the date of the issue of advance licence. The licence also contained a specific clause that the licensee shall furnish the prescribed original documents along with the Duty Entitlement Exemption Certificate (DEEC) books having details of imports and exports duly authenticated by the Customs within two months of export obligation period to the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). Admittedly, the period of fulfilling the export obligation expired on 21.06.2001. Alleging that the petitioner failed to furnish the relevant documents in proof of fulfilment of export obligation under the advance licence, DGFT issued notice dated 31.04.2004 calling upon the petitioner to furnish the documents specified therein within 15 days, failing which to show cause within 15 days as to why action should not be taken treating the petitioner as 100% defaulter in the fulfilment of export obligation followed by a similar show cause notices dated 19.05.2004 and 16.12.2004. The petitioner claims to have submitted its replies.

4. The respondent No.2 passed an order on 05.04.2010 holding that the licence had been mis-utilized and that the appellant had violated the provisions of the FTDR Act and imposing penalty of Rs.3,46,30,500/- on the petitioner and the Directors in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(2) read with Section 11(4) of FTDR Act, 1992. The statutory appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 15 of the FTDR Act was dismissed by the respondent No.1 by order dated 05.01.2015. The statutory review petition was also dismissed by order dated 21/24.08.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.8417/2015 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal dated 18.05.2016. Hence, the present appeal.

5. It is contended by Sh.Bishwajeet Bhattacharya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner had produced all the relevant documents to establish fulfilment of export obligation. Placing much reliance upon clause 4.12 of the Handbook of Procedures providing for "exports in anticipation of licence", it is vehemently contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the exports effected by the appellant/writ petitioner prior to the date of issuance of advance licence cannot be considered in fulfilment of export obligation is erroneous. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the light of clause 4.12, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 should have held the export obligation was fulfilled on the basis of the exports took place on 16.02.1999, 29.01.1999 and 20.04.1999.

6. Though the order of the respondent No.2 was not supported by sufficient reasons, we have observed that the respondent No.1, i.e., the appellant authority while disposing of the statutory appeal passed a well-reasoned order after considering all the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. Having given sufficient opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents to establish the fulfilment of export obligation, the appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.1 by order dated 05.01.2015. The relevant paras of the said order may be reproduced for ready reference:

"4. Thereafter, final personal hear