Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11379 (ALL)

M/S SUPERIOR METAL OVERSEAS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/3980/2026 · 2026-09-28

Saumitra Dayal Singh, Swarupama Chaturvedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3980 of 2026 . Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Akanksha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anita Kushwaha, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the Director General of Foreign Trade. 2. We find no legal error in the order of the Director General of Foreign Trade rejecting the waiver application dated 20.12.2025. The authority has correctly noted the principle of undue hardship as the only ground on which waiver may be granted. As to the non-consideration of that ground, perusal of the application seeking waiver indicates that the petitioner may have made generic disclosures. To the extent, no specific pleadings may have been made of financial distress, if any, faced by the petitioner or any serious threat to existence that may be caused as a result of payments of the pre- deposit amounts and further in absence of documentary evidence adduced in support of such pleadings, the issue never became open for consideration by the Director General of Foreign Trade on the parameters of third proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act No. 22 of 1992. 3. If the petitioner were to contend that facts existed as may have warranted exercise of discretion by the appeal authority in terms of third proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act No. 22 of 1992, the burden was on the petitioner to bring on record such facts before it may have prayed for that discretionary relief. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akanksha Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. M/S Superior Metal Overseas .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. To the extent, the petitioner had itself not made necessary pleadings, no error may have been caused in the order of the appeal authority in declining to grant the benefit of third proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act No. 22 of 1992. 5. Accordingly, the instant petition lacks merit and is dismissed. September 29, 2026 #Vikram/- WTAX No. 3980 of 2026 2 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad