Public notice on SHIS surrender cannot be narrowed by adding an unstated relaxation requirement.

A beneficial public notice dealing with simultaneous availment of zero duty EPCG and SHIS benefits was construed as not requiring the importer to file a separate application for policy relaxation under para 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20. The text of the notice and para 2.58 did not impose such an additional condition, and once the SHIS scrips were surrendered and cancelled by the issuing authority, customs authorities could not read in further requirements to deny the exemption. On that basis, the linked duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer was required to apply for and obtain a separate policy relaxation under para 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 before surrendering SHIS scrips so as to avail the benefit of the public notice and retain the exemption from customs duty.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the construction of the public notice issued to resolve cases of simultaneous availment of zero duty EPCG and SHIS benefits. The relevant condition only stated that the power under para 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy would be exercised by DGFT to relax the requirement of prior return of SHIS. It did not say that the importer must itself apply for, or obtain, a separate relaxation from the Policy Relaxation Committee. The text of para 2.58 also did not prescribe any such application requirement. The importer had surrendered the SHIS scrips, and they were cancelled by the issuing authority. Once the public notice was complied with, the customs authorities could not add further conditions and deny the benefit by reading extra words into the instrument. As the exemption benefit survived, the foundation for demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty also failed.

Conclusion: The requirement of a separate application for policy relaxation was not mandatory, and the importer was entitled to the benefit of the public notice.

Final Conclusion: The denial of exemption and the consequential duty demand, confiscation and penalties could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A beneficial public notice or exemption framework cannot be curtailed by adding a requirement that is not expressly stated in its text, and compliance with the prescribed surrender mechanism is sufficient to claim its benefit.

---