Export eligibility under an import policy cannot be narrowed by adding unwritten growth conditions.

The Bombay High Court held that eligibility for an Export House Certificate had to be tested strictly against the criteria in the import policy: exports in each base year and the prescribed average f.o.b. value. A year-on-year decline during the base period was not a disqualifying factor because the policy did not require continuous growth. The Court also ruled that the authority could not add a further condition by executive interpretation, as administrative action must remain within the four corners of the published scheme. On that basis, the refusal was set aside and the additional licence application was directed to be considered on merits within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refusal to grant an Export House Certificate was justified on the ground of a steep fall in exports during the base period; (ii) whether the authority could read into the import policy a requirement of continuous growth in exports though the policy did not prescribe it; (iii) whether consequential directions regarding consideration of the additional licence application were warranted.

Issue (i): whether the refusal to grant an Export House Certificate was justified on the ground of a steep fall in exports during the base period

Analysis: The policy prescribed the relevant eligibility criteria for a small scale unit by requiring exports in each of the three base years and an annual average f.o.b. value of exports of not less than the stipulated amount. The petitioners satisfied those conditions. A decline from year to year within the base period was not made a disqualifying factor by the policy.

Conclusion: The refusal on the stated ground was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the authority could read into the import policy a requirement of continuous growth in exports though the policy did not prescribe it

Analysis: The authority was bound to act within the four corners of the policy framed by the Government. A condition of continuous growth was not part of the scheme and could not be imported by executive interpretation. Administrative action under a stated scheme must conform to the standards and conditions laid down in that scheme.

Conclusion: The authority could not add the requirement of continuous growth, and the petitioners were entitled to the certificate.

Issue (iii): whether consequential directions regarding consideration of the additional licence application were warranted

Analysis: Since the certificate was directed to be granted, the application for an additional licence under the relevant paragraph of the import policy also required consideration on merits within a time-bound period.

Conclusion: The respondents were directed to consider the additional licence application on merits within the stipulated time.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the impugned refusal could not be sustained, and the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs flowing from grant of the Export House Certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative authority exercising power under a published scheme cannot introduce additional disqualifying conditions not found in the scheme, and eligibility must be tested strictly on the criteria actually prescribed.

---