M/S SUPERIOR METAL OVERSEASversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT TAX No. - 3980 of 2026

M/S Superior Metal 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 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.
                                                                                           WTAX No. 3980 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