9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P) 2009-14, these two writ petitions are filed. 3. The petitioner company is in the business of trading in textiles both in domestic and international markets. It is also an Importer - Exporter Card (IEC) Holder. 4. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 of Foreign Trade (Development And Regulation) Act, 1992 (For Short "the Act"), the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, by Notification No. 1/2009-2014 dated 27th August, 2009 issued the Foreign Trade Policy 2009 - 2014 which came into force with immediate effect. 5. By the Notification dated 28.12.2012 the Government of India has formulated a scheme called Incremental Exports Incentivisation Scheme by adding paragraph 3.14.4 to FTP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Scheme for the year 2013-14 will be limited to a scrip of a value not exceeding Rs. 1 Crore per IEC. (ii) Claims in excess of this value will be subjected to greater scrutiny by Regional Authority." 8. Vide Notification No.44 dated 25.09.2013, the following sub paragraphs have been added to paragraph 3.14.4(c) of FTP 2009-14 "(i) Benefit of Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme for the last quarter of 2012-13 will be limited to 25% growth or Incremental growth of Rs. 10 crores in value, whichever is less. (ii) Claims in excess of this value will be subjected to greater scrutiny by Regional Authority." 9. In terms of Schemes dated 28.12.2012 and 18.4.2013, the petitioner made two applications claiming Duty Credit Scrip for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the restriction imposed under the impugned Notifications dated 25.09.2013 has virtually frustrated the very object and purpose of FTP 2009-14. 13. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is contended that the impugned notifications dated 25.09.2013 are only clarificatory in nature and they are well within the scope of FTP 2009-14. It is also contended that the claims made by the petitioner were on misinterpretation of the Schemes and misconceived. While denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is further submitted that the incremental growth is not the only eligible criterion in the Schemes but it is also necessary to fulfil the criteria of exports to specific markets. 14. We have heard the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27.10.2015 in Civil Appeal No.554/2006 titled Director General of Foreign Trade and Another v M/s Kanak Exports and another held as under; "101. We may state, at the outset, that the incentive scheme in question, as promulgated by the Government, is in the nature of concession or incentive which is a privilege of the Central Government. It is for the Government to take the decision to grant such a privilege or not. It is also trite law that such exemptions, concessions or incentives can be withdrawn any time. All these are matters which are in the domain of policy decisions of the Government. When there is withdrawal of such incentive and it is also shown that the same was done in public interest, the Court would not tinker with these po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
