Export obligation extensions are governed by the policy in force on the application date, with no vested right to the earlier regime.

An application for extension of export obligation is to be decided under the policy regime in force on the date of the request, and there is no vested right to insist on an earlier regime. On the facts, hardship was not substantiated because no order had barred export, no variation of the interim arrangement was sought to permit fulfilment, and there was no reasonable explanation for failing to export during the extended period. The applicable policy also limited extension for raw sugar to six months and required 50% export performance under the Handbook of Procedures 2015-20, which the applicant did not satisfy. The refusal to grant further time was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner was entitled to extension of time to complete the export obligation on the asserted ground of hardship and control over stock; (ii) whether the application for extension had to be considered under the policy regime in force prior to 01.04.2015 or under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 and the Handbook of Procedures then applicable.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner was entitled to extension of time to complete the export obligation on the asserted ground of hardship and control over stock.

Analysis: The export obligation had expired before the relevant interim order of the Allahabad High Court. No order of that Court had been shown to have prohibited export, and no attempt had been made to seek variation of the interim arrangement to permit fulfilment of the export obligation. The asserted hardship was found to be unsupported, and the petitioner had no reasonable explanation for not exporting during the extended period when the PIL had already been disposed of.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to further extension of the export obligation period.

Issue (ii): whether the application for extension had to be considered under the policy regime in force prior to 01.04.2015 or under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 and the Handbook of Procedures then applicable.

Analysis: Extension of time was treated as a procedural matter to be considered under the policy in force when the application was made. The petitioner had no vested right to have the request decided under the earlier regime. Under the applicable policy, extension for raw sugar could not be granted beyond six months, and the petitioner also did not satisfy the threshold requirement of 50% export performance under paragraph 4.42(c) of the Handbook of Procedures 2015-20.

Conclusion: The application was rightly governed by the policy in force on the date of the request, and the petitioner could not obtain extension beyond the limits then applicable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of extension failed on merits, and the rejection of the request for further time to discharge the export obligation was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for extension of export obligation is to be decided under the policy in force on the date of the application, no vested right exists to insist on an earlier policy regime, and extension may be refused where the prescribed conditions are not met.

---