Retrospective reduction of export incentive entitlement cannot defeat accrued duty credit rights absent subsisting government dues.

An exporter was held entitled to the remaining duty credit scrips under the Target Plus Scheme for the 2005-2006 export year because the later amendment reducing entitlement could not be applied retrospectively to take away an accrued benefit. The court treated the petitioner as falling within the higher entitlement bracket applicable when the exports were made, and found that prior release of part of the benefit did not justify withholding the balance. It further held that alleged non-submission of Bank Realisation Certificates did not amount to subsisting government dues, as no quantified or enforceable demand existed. The claim under the incentive scheme therefore could not be defeated on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the balance/additional duty credit scrips under the Target Plus Scheme for the export year 2005-2006, and whether release could be withheld on the basis of alleged customs dues relating to non-submission of Bank Realisation Certificates.

Analysis: The scheme originally provided graded duty credit entitlement linked to incremental export growth, and the petitioner fell within the highest bracket for the relevant year. The subsequent amendment reducing the entitlement and giving it retrospective effect was held in earlier litigation to operate only prospectively, thereby preserving the petitioner's right to the higher entitlement for exports made before the amendment took effect. The later trade notice required a certificate showing that no government dues were pending before release of claims, but the expression "government dues" was understood as dues that are legally payable and subsisting. The record showed no quantified or enforceable government demand against the petitioner. The alleged non-submission of Bank Realisation Certificates did not constitute a pending government due. Since part of the entitlement had already been granted, withholding the remaining entitlement for the same export year was found unjustified.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the remaining duty credit scrips, and the objection based on alleged customs dues could not defeat the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim under a beneficial export incentive scheme cannot be denied on the basis of non-existent or unquantified government dues, and an amendment reducing entitlement cannot be applied retrospectively to deprive an exporter of an accrued benefit for the relevant period.

---