Advance authorisation revalidation and policy relaxation cannot cure belated requests filed after expiry and prescribed time limits.
Advance authorisations under the Foreign Trade Policy carry fixed validity, and revalidation or enhancement of value and quantity is available only within the permitted extension period and the life of the authorisation. Applications filed long after expiry were therefore not maintainable, and different remedies could not be combined to obtain time-barred benefits. Policy relaxation is discretionary and requires a legally sufficient showing of genuine hardship; alleged operational difficulties and market slowdown were found inadequate. The late-cut mechanism also could not revive a stale request filed beyond the prescribed limits. The rejection of the request was sustained, with only limited consequential directions.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to revalidation and enhancement of value and quantity of the advance authorisations despite the applications being made long after expiry of the authorisations and the extended period. (ii) Whether the petitioner could invoke policy relaxation and the late-cut mechanism to overcome the delay on the ground of genuine hardship.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to revalidation and enhancement of value and quantity of the advance authorisations despite the applications being made long after expiry of the authorisations and the extended period.
Analysis: The advance authorisations carried a fixed validity period under the relevant Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedure. Revalidation under the procedure was available only for a limited extension from the date of expiry, and enhancement in value or quantity was contemplated only within the life of the authorisation. The applications in question were filed much after expiry of the original validity as well as the permissible extension period. The Court held that the petitioner could not combine different remedies so as to secure a benefit not available under the scheme after lapse of time.
Conclusion: The claim for belated revalidation and enhancement was rejected and is against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could invoke policy relaxation and the late-cut mechanism to overcome the delay on the ground of genuine hardship.
Analysis: Policy relaxation under the Foreign Trade Policy is discretionary and depends upon genuine hardship or adverse impact on trade. The Court found that the petitioner did not establish a legally sufficient basis for relaxation. The alleged SAP-related difficulties and the market slowdown were not accepted as grounds showing that the delay was unavoidable or that the petitioner was prevented from acting within the prescribed period. The late-cut provision could not be used to revive a stale request filed well beyond the relevant time limits.
Conclusion: The request for policy relaxation and application of late cut was rejected and is against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of the petitioner's request was sustained, while limited consequential directions were issued regarding disposal of the show-cause notice and filing of documents or drawback-related applications.
Ratio Decidendi: Discretionary relief under foreign trade policy cannot be granted for a belated request unless the claimant shows genuine hardship within the framework of the prescribed validity, extension, and procedural time limits.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
