Binding precedent under Foreign Trade Policy required issuance of the full duty credit scrip, not a restricted entitlement.

The Bombay HC held that entitlement to the balance duty credit scrip under the Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme had to follow the binding precedent in JSW Steel Ltd., which had already interpreted the relevant Foreign Trade Policy amendment and notification framework. The administrative restriction limiting the claim to Rs. 1 crore could not be sustained because it was contrary to that earlier decision. The writ petition was therefore allowed, the impugned restriction was set aside, and the authorities were directed to comply with the directions flowing from the binding judgment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to issuance of the balance duty credit scrip under the Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme, and whether the respondents were justified in restricting the claim to Rs. 1 crore.

Analysis: The claim arose under paragraph 3.14.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and the related notifications. The Court noted that the issue was squarely covered by its earlier decision in JSW Steel Ltd., which had already considered the same policy amendments and notification framework. The subsequent restriction of the petitioner's entitlement to Rs. 1 crore, without accepting the balance amount, could not stand in view of that binding decision.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to the balance duty credit scrip, and the respondents were directed to comply with the directions flowing from the earlier binding judgment.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned restriction on issuance of the balance duty credit scrip was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant Foreign Trade Policy amendment and notification are already covered by a binding precedent, the administrative authority cannot restrict the entitlement contrary to that precedent.

---