Duty Free Import Authorisation extension requires genuine hardship; commercial expediency alone does not justify judicial interference.

Revalidation of a Duty Free Import Authorisation was not automatic and depended on merits under the Foreign Trade Policy. The relaxation power was discretionary, exercisable only in public interest and on proof of genuine hardship and adverse impact on trade. As the request was based on commercial expediency and market volatility, and not on any unforeseen hardship preventing completion of imports, the authority was justified in refusing a further extension after the authorisation had already remained valid for twenty-four months. Judicial review would lie only for perversity, arbitrariness, caprice or policy violation, none of which was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to grant a second extension of the Duty Free Import Authorisation on the ground that no genuine hardship was made out, and the rejection of a limited further extension, were arbitrary or unreasonable so as to warrant interference.

Analysis: Revalidation of an import authorisation under the policy framework was not automatic and could be granted only on merits. The relaxation power under the Foreign Trade Policy was discretionary and could be exercised only in public interest and on proof of genuine hardship and adverse impact on trade. The petitioner's request was founded on commercial expediency and market volatility, not on any unforeseen hardship or emergent circumstance preventing completion of imports. The authorisation had already remained valid for twenty-four months, and the authority had recorded reasons for declining further relaxation. In judicial review, interference was justified only if the decision was perverse, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the policy framework, which was not shown here.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant further extension was valid and no ground for judicial interference was made out; the challenge failed.

---