Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for recognition of alternate export products under the EPCG scheme warranted interference and remand for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The petitioner claimed that export of cotton seed hulls and cotton linters should be treated as alternate products towards fulfilment of export obligation, and also relied on the extension of the licence period during the ban on export of the principal products. The impugned decision rejected the claim on grounds relating to delayed invocation, expiry of the licence, and retrospective application of the permissive provision. The Court found that the petitioner had not been given an adequate opportunity to substantiate the factual assertions regarding earlier exports and the effect of the export ban, and that the rival contentions on extension of time and retrospective operation of the alternate-product facility required reconsideration on merits.
Conclusion: The matter was required to be reconsidered afresh by the EPCG authority after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and the impugned order was set aside. The connected writ challenging the earlier review order did not survive independently.