Reasoned consideration of amended export policy required before refusing duty credit entitlement; unreasoned rejection set aside and remanded.

A refusal to consider a petitioner's duty credit entitlement under a revised export policy was unsustainable because the order did not address the effect of Public Notice No. 69/2004-09 dated 07.04.2005, which amended paragraph 3.2.6-A of the Export-Import Policy, 2002-07. The HC held that the authority was required to give reasons showing why the amended policy did not apply and why the earlier base-year recognition requirement still governed the claim. As the order lacked adequate reasons and did not reflect proper consideration of the amended policy, it was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to consider the petitioner's application for duty credit entitlement under the revised export policy was unsustainable for want of consideration of the amended policy and reasons.

Analysis: The impugned order did not explain why the amendment introduced by Public Notice No. 69/2004-09 dated 07.04.2005, which modified paragraph 3.2.6-A of the Export-Import Policy, 2002-07, was inapplicable. The order also did not state why the petitioner was still required to satisfy the earlier base-year recognition requirement despite the subsequent policy change. Since the order lacked sufficient reasons and did not show proper application of the amended policy, interference was warranted. The appropriate course was to remit the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

Conclusion: The refusal order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh decision after personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision affecting entitlement under a policy amendment must disclose reasons showing due consideration of the amended policy, failing which it is liable to be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

---