2018 (2) TMI 1510 - HC - Customs

Court denies relief in premium claim under Foreign Trade Act, 1992. Judicial limits highlighted. Petition dismissed.

The court declined to grant relief to the petitioner in a claim for a premium amount with interest on a REP Licence under the Foreign Trade Act, 1992. The ... Payment of interest alongwith interest - applicability of EXIM Policy 1992-97 - Held that: - we cannot direct consideration of this application made in the year 1993 by issuing a writ in the year 2018. An entirely new regime has come into force since the policy (EXIM Policy) and the circulars which are relied upon. Going by the affidavit of the respondents, it is evident that this was not a open ended scheme. It was in effect and force for a particular period. It cannot be directed to be extended unless it is so provided in the document itself. Meaning thereby, this court can neither direct continuation of a policy or a circular or framing of a new policy. Petition dismissed. Issues:Claim for premium amount with interest on REP Licence under Foreign Trade Act, 1992.Analysis:The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to pay a premium amount on the REP Licence with interest. The petitioner held a REP Licence for exporting and importing rough and polished diamonds under the Foreign Trade Act, 1992. The claim was based on a policy circular from 1993, and the petitioner alleged that despite filing an application in 1993, the premium was not paid. The respondents argued that the RBI provided funds, and the scheme was not open-ended, with a specific period of operation until 1994. The respondents contended that the petitioner did not follow the procedures outlined in the Handbook of Procedure, 1992-97, and failed to approach the Grievance Cell before seeking relief from the court.The court examined the materials presented, including the policy circular and the petitioner's application. The circular outlined conditions for premium payments based on export-import timelines and completion of procedures before specific dates. The court noted that the circular was tied to the policy and required compliance within its operational period. The petitioner's application in 1993 was acknowledged but deemed incomplete by the authorities, leading to further communications. The court highlighted that the policy and circular were not open-ended, and the scheme had a specific duration until 1994, with no provision for extension unless explicitly stated.In its decision, the court declined to grant relief to the petitioner. The court emphasized that it could not revive or extend a policy or circular beyond its stipulated period. The court stated that intervening in policy matters, particularly after a significant time lapse, was not within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, discharged the rule, and did not award costs to either party. The judgment underscored the limitations of seeking judicial intervention to revive or extend policies, especially in cases where the scheme had a defined operational period and specific compliance requirements.