Grievance redressal jurisdiction over DFCE entitlement claims requires lawful implementation of an approved decision.
The Foreign Trade Policy's grievance redressal mechanism covered disputes over Duty Free Credit Entitlement claims, and the Committee was competent to decide the petitioner's entitlement because the dispute concerned the benefit itself, not the licence or certificate. Its duly approved decision was valid and could not be kept in abeyance without lawful variation, review, or challenge. The respondents were therefore required to implement the decision and could not withhold the benefit merely because it might affect the government's position in other proceedings.
Issues: (i) Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee had jurisdiction to decide the petitioner's claim for Duty Free Credit Entitlement under the Foreign Trade Policy. (ii) Whether the respondents were justified in withholding implementation of the Committee's decision.
Issue (i): Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee had jurisdiction to decide the petitioner's claim for Duty Free Credit Entitlement under the Foreign Trade Policy.
Analysis: The Foreign Trade Policy, issued in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, provided a grievance redressal mechanism for resolving outstanding problems and disputes, including disputes over entitlements. The Committee was constituted under the policy, and the Director General of Foreign Trade chaired it. The dispute concerned entitlement to the DFCE benefit and did not question the licence or certificate itself. The policy therefore covered the claim, and the Committee was competent to decide it.
Conclusion: The Grievance Redressal Committee had jurisdiction to decide the petitioner's DFCE claim, and its decision was valid.
Issue (ii): Whether the respondents were justified in withholding implementation of the Committee's decision.
Analysis: The Committee's decision was communicated as approved at the highest level, and no material showed that it had been varied, modified, reviewed, or lawfully challenged. No satisfactory basis was shown for keeping a valid and binding decision in abeyance merely because it was said to affect the government's stand in other proceedings. The withholding of the benefit was therefore unreasonable and unfair.
Conclusion: The respondents were not justified in withholding implementation of the decision, and they were bound to act on it.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the petitioner was entitled to enforcement of the DFCE decision already taken in its favour.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory or policy-based grievance redressal body is empowered to resolve entitlement disputes, its duly approved decision cannot be withheld or ignored without lawful variation, review, or challenge, and the administration must implement it fairly and reasonably.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
