TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given to the amendment made in the Target Plus Scheme (Annexure P-2) notified under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1992'). A prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the notification dated 12.06.2006 (Annexure P-6) ultravires the Act, 1992 and the Constitution of India as the same is unreasonable and arbitrary being violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India in so far as the benefit has been withdrawn with retrospective effect. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of various items including agricultural machinery (Tractors) etc. It is engaged in the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue of exports in the current licensing year over the previous licensing year, as under: Percentage Incremental Duty Credit Entitlement Growth (as a % of the incremental growth) 20% and above but 5% below 25%25% or above but 10% below 100% 100% and above 15% (of 100%) The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, vide its notification dated 31.03.2006 (Annexure P-5) in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 5 of the Act, 1992 read with paragraph 1.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, as amended, abolished the Target Plus Scheme for exports from 1.4.2006 onwards. Vide this notification, sub-paras 3.7.1 to 3.7.8 in para 3.7 were also deleted w.e.f. 1.4.2006. The effect of the said notification wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is this notification, which is under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, 1992, the Central Government has been empowered to formulate and announce export and import policy and also to amend the policy in the like manner. The Central Government can formulate the policy and amend the same with prospective effect as the same would not be violative of the principle of doctrine of promissory estoppel. A notification could not be issued withdrawing any benefit with retrospective effect as the same is not within the power of the Central Government as the principle of doctrine of promissory estoppel would come into play. On the basis of the promise in the form of Target Plus S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ournment. Time after time, counsel for the respondents had sought time to inform the Court with respect to the filing of the transfer application with regard to the present writ petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. No specific information was forth coming as to whether the said application has either been filed or has been listed or not. On 18.03.2009, one last opportunity was granted to the counsel for the respondents to move an application for transfer of the present writ petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court as more than one year had passed since the request for adjournment was sought by the counsel for the respondents. Today also, counsel for the respondents is unable to inform the Court as to whether such an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
