Petition Dismissed: Court Affirms SC Ruling on DFCE Scheme; Fraudulent Export Practices Barred; Costs Imposed.

The petition challenging the denial of benefits under the DFCE Scheme was dismissed, with the court affirming the Supreme Court's binding judgment. The petitioner was found ineligible due to fraudulent export practices, including inflating export figures. Claims for parity with other exporters were rejected, and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the 'PM CARES' Fund. The court upheld the validity of notifications under the EXIM Policy 2002-2007, rejecting the argument of retrospective impact on vested rights. The Supreme Court's findings on misuse of the scheme were decisive, precluding re-litigation of the petitioner's eligibility.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated 28.12.2017 denying the petitioner benefits under the Duty Free Credit Entitlement (DFCE) Scheme.
2. Interpretation and application of various notifications and public notices issued under the Export-Import (EXIM) Policy 2002-2007.
3. Determination of vested rights under the DFCE Scheme.
4. Allegations of fraudulent exports and misuse of the DFCE Scheme.
5. Parity in treatment with other exporters, specifically M/s Adani Export Ltd.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order dated 28.12.2017:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 28.12.2017 by respondent no.3, which declared the petitioner ineligible for benefits under the DFCE Scheme. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's judgment did not specifically address their eligibility under the scheme but rather focused on the validity of certain notifications and public notices. However, the court found that the Supreme Court had indeed considered the petitioner’s case, particularly noting the exponential growth in exports and the misuse of the scheme. The Supreme Court's findings were binding, and the petitioner could not re-agitate its eligibility.

2. Interpretation and application of notifications and public notices:
The Government of India, under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, notified the EXIM Policy 2002-2007, which included provisions for the DFCE Scheme. Various amendments and notifications were issued, including Notification no.28 dated 28.01.2004, which was held to be clarificatory and valid, and Notifications dated 21.04.2004 and 23.04.2004, which were held to be prospective. The Supreme Court upheld these interpretations, and the petitioner’s argument that the notifications could not retrospectively affect vested rights was rejected based on findings of fraudulent activities.

3. Determination of vested rights under the DFCE Scheme:
The Supreme Court held that exporters who achieved a 25% incremental growth in exports acquired a right to receive benefits under the scheme, which could not be taken away. However, this right did not vest in exporters whose growth was achieved through fraudulent means. The court found that the petitioner’s exports were inflated through fraudulent methods, thus disqualifying them from claiming vested rights under the scheme.

4. Allegations of fraudulent exports and misuse of the DFCE Scheme:
The Supreme Court detailed various fraudulent practices used by exporters, including the petitioner, to inflate export figures. These included exporting rough diamonds despite India not being a producer, re-exporting cut and polished diamonds with artificial value addition, and exporting gold medallions and jewellery to related entities to avoid import duties. The petitioner’s exponential growth in exports was found to be part of such fraudulent activities, leading to the denial of benefits under the DFCE Scheme.

5. Parity in treatment with other exporters:
The petitioner argued that they should be treated on par with M/s Adani Export Ltd., which allegedly received benefits under the scheme despite similar findings. The court rejected this argument, stating that there is no right to equality in the violation of law. The petitioner’s claim for benefits was dismissed based on the Supreme Court’s clear and categorical judgment.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the 'PM CARES' Fund. The court upheld the findings of the Supreme Court regarding the misuse of the DFCE Scheme and the ineligibility of the petitioner for benefits under the scheme. The Supreme Court's judgment was found to be specific and binding, and the petitioner could not re-agitate the issues already decided.

---