Foreign Trade Policy relaxation permits conditional clubbing of Advance Authorisations; later amendment governed the request and upheld the restrictions.

Under the Foreign Trade Policy, a relaxation or exemption for clubbing Advance Authorisations is discretionary and not a vested right. A request filed after the policy amendment of 5 June 2012 could not rely on Public Notice No. 79 of 13 October 2011, because the later clarification only preserved pending requests filed up to 4 June 2012; the rejection of clubbing was therefore upheld. The Policy Relaxation Committee was also competent to impose conditions while granting clubbing, since it may grant relaxation in genuine hardship or public interest and attach such conditions as it deems fit. The 48-month restriction and related conditions were sustained as valid incidents of the relaxation power.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could invoke Public Notice No. 79 dated 13 October 2011 on 29 August 2012 and seek clubbing of the three Advance Authorisations; (ii) Whether the Policy Relaxation Committee had the power to impose conditions while allowing clubbing of the three Advance Authorisations.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could invoke Public Notice No. 79 dated 13 October 2011 on 29 August 2012 and seek clubbing of the three Advance Authorisations?

Analysis: The application for clubbing was filed on 29 August 2012, when the prevailing policy had already been amended with effect from 5 June 2012. The later clarification dated 18 April 2013 merely provided that pending requests filed up to 4 June 2012 could be considered under the earlier notice. That cut-off date was treated as a logical consequence of the change in policy and not as an arbitrary or retrospective restriction. A relaxation policy does not confer a vested right to insist on continued application of an earlier regime after it has been superseded.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to invoke Public Notice No. 79 on 29 August 2012, and the rejection of clubbing on that basis was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the Policy Relaxation Committee had the power to impose conditions while allowing clubbing of the three Advance Authorisations?

Analysis: Under the Foreign Trade Policy, the DGFT and the Policy Relaxation Committee may grant relaxation or exemption on grounds of genuine hardship or public interest and may impose such conditions as they deem fit. The power is discretionary, case-specific, and exercised to balance hardship against adverse impact on trade. Since exemption is not a matter of right, the conditions attached to the clubbing order were examined for perversity, illegality, or arbitrariness and none was found. The restriction to a 48-month period and the allied conditions were treated as valid incidents of the relaxation power.

Conclusion: The Policy Relaxation Committee was held competent to impose conditions while allowing clubbing, and the impugned conditions were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in entirety, and the challenge to both the rejection of the claimed policy benefit and the conditions imposed upon relaxation was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A relaxation or exemption under the Foreign Trade Policy is discretionary, not a matter of right, and the authority granting it may impose reasonable conditions in public interest; a later policy amendment validly governs requests made after its commencement.

---