Allahabad High Court
M/S MODERN METALS OVERSEASversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The waiver application was correctly rejected as the petitioner failed to plead specific facts or provide evidence of undue hardship, and thus the petition is dismissed.
Summary
M/S Modern Metals Overseas filed a writ petition challenging the Director General of Foreign Trade's rejection of its waiver application dated 20‑12‑2025 under the third proviso of Section 15(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The court examined whether the authority erred in not granting a waiver on the ground of undue hardship. It held that the petitioner failed to specifically plead financial distress or provide documentary evidence to substantiate the hardship claim, which is a mandatory requirement under the proviso. Consequently, the burden of proving such facts rested on the petitioner, which it did not discharge. The court found no legal error in the authority's order and dismissed the petition as lacking merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the Director General of Foreign Trade erred in rejecting the waiver application under the third proviso to Section 15(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
- Whether the petitioner satisfied the burden of proving undue hardship to merit a waiver.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- waiver
- undue hardship
- Foreign Trade Act
- Section 15(1)
- burden of proof
- writ petition
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 3979 of 2026
M/S Modern Metals Overseas
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akanksha Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.
.
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 Sri
Krishna Agarawal, 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.
WTAX No. 3979 of 2026
2
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.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
September 29, 2026
#Vikram/-
Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…