Writ jurisdiction declined for Exim Policy and EOU entitlement disputes requiring factual and technical adjudication

Writ jurisdiction was declined where entitlement under the Exim Policy, deemed exports, DTA sales and the exemption regime for 100% EOUs turned on business records, policy conditions and technical facts. The court treated these issues as fact-sensitive and unsuitable for determination under Article 226 while adjudication and appeal proceedings were already pending. It instead left the dispute to the competent departmental and appellate authorities, directing them to apply the governing principles, consider the relevant circulars and policy conditions, and give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained to quash the appellate order and determine the petitioner's entitlement under the Exim Policy and the exemption notification, or whether the dispute should be left to the competent departmental and appellate authorities for factual and technical adjudication.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the application of the Exim Policy, deemed exports, DTA entitlement, and the exemption regime governing 100% EOUs. The determination depended on examination of business records, policy conditions, circulars, and the applicability of the principles governing DTA sales and concessional duty. Such questions were found to be essentially technical and fact-sensitive. In that setting, the writ court declined to undertake the exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when proceedings were already pending before the adjudicating and appellate authorities. At the same time, those authorities were directed to consider the governing principles and afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The writ court refused to decide the merits in writ jurisdiction and directed the pending proceedings before the competent authorities to be taken up and decided in accordance with law.

---