Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

Penalty Under Section 11(2) of the FT Act Cannot Be Imposed for Non-Fulfillment of Export Obligations: Supreme Court Holds

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court today set aside the penalty imposed on M/S. Embio Limited for failing to meet export obligations, clarifying the scope of Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FT Act). Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing for the bench, stated, “Penalty under Section 11(2) cannot be imposed for non-fulfillment of export obligations as it strictly pertains to unauthorized export or import activities.”

The appeal revolved around the legality of a penalty imposed for not meeting export obligations under a specific license, following a corporate amalgamation and restructuring. The core legal question was whether Section 11(2) of the FT Act, which governs penalties for contraventions involving unauthorized exports or imports, could be applied to situations where the only issue was the failure to meet export targets.

M/S. Embio Limited (formerly Emmellen Biotech Pharmaceuticals Limited), following its amalgamation with Karnataka Malladi Biotics Limited, faced a penalty for not fulfilling export obligations stipulated under an Export Promotion Capital Goods Licence. This penalty was challenged up to the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the penalty, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the Karnataka High Court had erroneously dismissed a writ petition on the grounds that the original petitioner had not reserved the liberty to re-file, despite a clear judicial allowance for the same.

Justice Oka emphasized, “The imposition of a penalty under Section 11(2) for failing to meet export obligations when no unauthorized export or import occurred is a clear misapplication of the statute.” The Court meticulously analyzed the language and intent of Section 11(2), concluding it was inapplicable to cases of unmet export obligations alone.

The Court noted that the rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, included waivers for certain dues, which the authorities failed to consider appropriately when imposing the penalty.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing both the High Court’s judgment and the original order imposing the penalty. The Court’s decision reiterates the necessity of adhering to the strict letter of legal provisions when imposing penalties under economic statutes.

Date of Decision: May 13, 2024.

M/S. Embio Limited versus Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.

Similar News