Deemed export exclusion bars reimbursement for Free Trade Zone supplies; promissory estoppel fails without clear representation and facts.

Supplies of raw materials from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Free Trade Zone unit were treated as deemed exports under the policy, and that classification brought the claim within the scheme's express exclusion. The fact that the materials were later used in physical exports did not change the character of the inward supply, so reimbursement under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme was not available. The plea of promissory estoppel also failed because there was no clear representation overriding the scheme and no precise supporting facts on exports, claim amount, price differential, or supply prices. The claim was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether supplies of raw materials from the Domestic Tariff Area to a unit situated in a Free Trade Zone constituted deemed exports so as to exclude the claim for reimbursement under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme; (ii) Whether the appellant could invoke promissory estoppel to compel reimbursement in the absence of a clear representation and supporting factual particulars.

Issue (i): Whether supplies of raw materials from the Domestic Tariff Area to a unit situated in a Free Trade Zone constituted deemed exports so as to exclude the claim for reimbursement under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme.

Analysis: The scheme was extended to Free Trade Zone units only in 1991 and expressly excluded deemed exports. The relevant import and export policy treated supplies made in India to units in Free Trade Zones as deemed exports. The Court held that the nature of the supply from the Domestic Tariff Area to the Free Trade Zone was determinative, and the fact that the appellant used the materials in a physical export did not alter the character of the inward supply. The claim for reimbursement therefore fell within the exclusion in the scheme.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to reimbursement under the scheme on this issue, and the conclusion was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could invoke promissory estoppel to compel reimbursement in the absence of a clear representation and supporting factual particulars.

Analysis: Promissory estoppel required a representation, reliance, and detriment, supported by precise factual data. The appellant did not furnish particulars of the exports, the claim amount, the price differential, or the actual supply prices, nor did it establish any representation by the Union of India contrary to the scheme. The Court found that the alleged assurances did not amount to a legally sufficient representation overriding the scheme's terms.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed, and the conclusion was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exclusion for deemed exports governed the claim, and the equitable plea could not succeed without the necessary factual foundation. The appeal therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a scheme expressly excludes deemed exports, supplies to a Free Trade Zone unit falling within that category cannot claim reimbursement merely because the goods are later used in physical exports; promissory estoppel cannot override the scheme in the absence of a clear representation and precise supporting facts.

---