Deemed export refund requires project-authority endorsement as subcontractor; vendor listings and contractor certificates are insufficient.

Deemed export benefits and Terminal Excise Duty refund under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 depend on contemporaneous endorsement of the supplier as a subcontractor in contract documents issued by the project authority. Inclusion in a vendors list, or a later clarification letter equating "vendor" with "subcontractor," is insufficient where the policy requires prior contractual endorsement. A certificate issued only by the main contractor also does not satisfy Clause 8.6.2. Separately, supplies under an International Competitive Bidding contract for a project financed by a notified foreign agency fall within the policy exemption under Clause 8.3(c), so refund of duty paid is not available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a vendor's inclusion in the vendors list, together with a subsequent clarification letter equating "vendor" with "subcontractor", satisfied the requirement of endorsement as a subcontractor for deemed export benefits and refund of Terminal Excise Duty under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14. (ii) Whether the certificate issued by the main contractor, and not by the project authority, was sufficient compliance with Clause 8.6.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14. (iii) Whether supplies made under an International Competitive Bidding contract for a project financed by a notified foreign agency were excluded from Terminal Excise Duty refund under Clause 8.3(c) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14.

Issue (i): Whether a vendor's inclusion in the vendors list, together with a subsequent clarification letter equating "vendor" with "subcontractor", satisfied the requirement of endorsement as a subcontractor for deemed export benefits and refund of Terminal Excise Duty under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14.

Analysis: The relevant scheme required a party to be shown as a subcontractor in the main contract or in documents issued consequent thereto, before the supply of goods, for availing deemed export benefits. The later clarification letter was only a response to a request for clarification and did not form part of the main contract or any contemporaneous endorsement by the project authority. The vendors list merely identified the appellant as a vendor and did not amount to the requisite contractual endorsement by the project authority.

Conclusion: The requirement of prior endorsement as subcontractor was not met, and the claim failed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the certificate issued by the main contractor, and not by the project authority, was sufficient compliance with Clause 8.6.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14.

Analysis: Clause 8.6.2 contemplated endorsement in the main contract or in documents issued by the project authority. The certificate relied upon was issued by the main contractor alone. No document issued by the project authority conclusively showed that the appellant had been originally or subsequently endorsed as a subcontractor under the contract. The Court therefore treated the main contractor's certificate as insufficient to satisfy the policy condition.

Conclusion: The certificate issued by the main contractor did not satisfy Clause 8.6.2.

Issue (iii): Whether supplies made under an International Competitive Bidding contract for a project financed by a notified foreign agency were excluded from Terminal Excise Duty refund under Clause 8.3(c) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14.

Analysis: The contract was entered into through International Competitive Bidding and the project was financed by a notified foreign agency. Under Clause 8.3(c), such supplies were exempt from Terminal Excise Duty at the threshold. In that situation, a claim for refund of duty paid did not survive for consideration under the policy framework applied by the authorities.

Conclusion: The supplies were not eligible for Terminal Excise Duty refund under Clause 8.3(c).

Final Conclusion: The refusal to grant refund was upheld because the appellant failed to establish the requisite subcontractor endorsement and, independently, the supplies fell within the category attracting exemption under the deemed export policy.

Ratio Decidendi: To claim deemed export benefits and refund of Terminal Excise Duty under the policy, the claimant must show contemporaneous endorsement as a subcontractor by the project authority in the contract documentation, and supplies made under exempt International Competitive Bidding arrangements do not qualify for refund under the stated policy provision.

---