Reasoned administrative decisions under Foreign Trade Policy must address the claim and cannot be upheld by later affidavit support.

Recognition of a claim as a group company under para 9.28 of the Foreign Trade Policy required a reasoned determination by the Policy Interpretation Committee, especially where its interpretation was final and binding. An order that simply rejected the claim without addressing the relevant policy criteria or the petitioner's contention on indirect satisfaction of the voting-rights condition was held arbitrary, and its validity had to stand or fall on the reasons recorded in the order itself, not on a later affidavit. The impugned rejection was quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for recognition as a group company under para 9.28 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, without recording reasons, was sustainable.

Analysis: The Policy Interpretation Committee is required to interpret the policy and decide claims on recorded reasons, especially when its interpretation is final and binding. An order that merely states that the petitioner and another enterprise cannot be treated as group companies, without discussing the relevant policy criteria or the petitioner's plea of indirect fulfillment of the voting-rights condition, is not a reasoned determination. The correctness of such an order must be tested from the reasons contained in the order itself and cannot be supported later by an affidavit. The absence of reasons, coupled with non-consideration of the specific claim raised, renders the rejection arbitrary.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable and were quashed. The matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law, in favour of the petitioner.

---