duty waiver, there was no question of imposing any penalty. Secondly, he submitted that both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench completely ignored that while Karnataka Biotics was permitted to withdraw the earlier Writ Petition, a liberty was granted to file a fresh one. He pointed out to the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in this regard. He invited our attention to the Order-in-Original passed by the 3rd respondent imposing a penalty of Rs. 23,38,882/- under Section 11(2) of the FT Act. The learned senior counsel would submit that non-fulfilment of export obligation under the licence is not a ground under Section 11 (2) of the FT Act to impose a penalty. He submitted that the order imposing penalty under Section 11 (2) of the FT Act was completely illegal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that under the scheme of rehabilitation of Karnataka Biotics, there was no clause granting a waiver of penalty which could be imposed