Prospective extension of EPCG export obligation denied where exporters had already received policy relief and sought time belatedly.

The EPCG export obligation period had already been extended by two years from the original expiry date, and the petitioners sought a fresh prospective extension from the date of the extension order as well as further time to comply. The Court noted the belated request, non-compliance with the export obligation requirements within time, and the fact that the petitioners had already received the policy benefit of an extension. As no ground was made out for interference in writ jurisdiction, the challenge to the rejection of further extension failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the export obligation period under the EPCG authorization extended prospectively from the date of the extension order, and to obtain a further extension of time for fulfilling the export obligation.

Analysis: The petitioners had already been granted an extension of two years from the original expiry of the export obligation period. The request before the Court was for a fresh prospective extension from the date of the extension order, but the materials showed that the petitioners had approached belatedly, had not complied with the relevant export obligation requirements in time, and had already been given the benefit of the extension contemplated by the policy framework. The Court also noted that the subsequent request for further extension was not accepted by the authority, and no ground was made out for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to any further prospective extension, and the challenge to the rejection failed.

---