Retrospective administrative instructions cannot defeat accrued DEPB export benefits or override the governing export policy.

Administrative instructions issued later could not be applied retrospectively to completed exports or to a DEPB licence already issued, because the governing export policy protected benefits accrued under the earlier regime. The Karnataka High Court noted that the policy itself barred adverse modifications for consignments already handed over to customs and exported before the public notice. It also found that such instructions could not override the Export and Import Policy 1997-2002 or defeat entitlement under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme. The cancellation and appellate orders were therefore set aside, and the exporter's accrued benefits were protected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the general instructions issued on 1-4-1999 operated prospectively or retrospectively so as to affect exports already made and the DEPB licence issued thereafter; (ii) Whether the general instructions could override the Export and Import Policy 1997-2002 and curtail the petitioner's entitlement under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the general instructions issued on 1-4-1999 operated prospectively or retrospectively so as to affect exports already made and the DEPB licence issued thereafter.

Analysis: The exports in question were made before the general instructions came into force. The policy itself indicated that modifications adverse to exporters would not apply to consignments already handed over to customs and exported up to the date of the public notice. The later instructions introduced a disadvantage to exporters and could not be applied to completed exports made earlier.

Conclusion: The instructions were prospective and could not affect the petitioner's earlier exports.

Issue (ii): Whether the general instructions could override the Export and Import Policy 1997-2002 and curtail the petitioner's entitlement under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme.

Analysis: The DEPB scheme under the policy granted export-related credit benefits according to the notified entitlement rates. Once the petitioner's goods were covered by the earlier policy position and the licence had been issued, subsequent administrative instructions could not defeat the entitlement already accrued. The cancellation orders failed to properly consider this policy framework and the petitioner's accrued benefit.

Conclusion: The general instructions could not override the policy or defeat the petitioner's entitlement under the scheme.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's export benefits under the DEPB scheme were held to be protected by the earlier policy regime, and the impugned cancellation and appellate orders were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative instructions cannot be applied retrospectively to deprive an exporter of a benefit accrued under an earlier policy, and they cannot override the governing export policy unless the policy itself authorises such curtailment.

---