Supreme Court denies export license appeal based on Exim Policy; promissory estoppel inapplicable.

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of an additional license to the appellant for export of processed iron ore under the Exim Policy 1990-93, despite reliance on the Exim Policy 1988-91. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was held inapplicable to policy changes regarding incentives, and claims of discrimination under Article 14 were dismissed. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court, with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the benefit of additional licence under Exim Policy 1988-91.
2. Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
3. Allegation of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to the Benefit of Additional Licence:
The appellant, engaged in the export of processed iron ore, claimed entitlement to an additional licence based on exports made during the period April 1990 to March 1991. Under the Exim Policy 1988-91, only unprocessed iron ore was ineligible for additional licences. However, the Exim Policy 1990-93 included "Minerals and ores" in the list of ineligible items, affecting the appellant's eligibility. Despite the appellant's reliance on the Exim Policy 1988-91, the actual export occurred under the new Exim Policy 1990-93, which explicitly excluded processed iron ore from eligibility for additional licences. The High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the denial of the additional licence based on the applicable policy during the export period.

2. Applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The appellant argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppel should apply, as they had acted upon the Exim Policy 1988-91 and entered into a contract based on the incentives promised therein. However, the Supreme Court held that the benefit of an additional licence was an incentive and not a right. The government was within its rights to change the policy, and the principle of promissory estoppel could not be applied to policy decisions regarding incentives. The relevant date for determining eligibility was the actual export date, which fell under the new Exim Policy 1990-93, rendering the appellant ineligible for the additional licence.

3. Allegation of Discrimination under Article 14:
The appellant contended that other similarly situated exporters were granted additional licences, alleging discrimination. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that negative discrimination could not be claimed to perpetuate illegality. The appellant could not demand benefits based on erroneous grants to others. The High Court had ordered an inquiry into how other exporters received benefits, but no further action was taken. The Supreme Court affirmed that the appellant was not entitled to the additional licence under the applicable policy, regardless of the treatment of other exporters.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming the denial of the additional licence to the appellant based on the Exim Policy 1990-93. The principles of promissory estoppel were deemed inapplicable to policy changes regarding incentives, and claims of discrimination were rejected. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

---