Export incentive ineligibility under a new policy defeats claim for additional licence; promissory estoppel does not apply.

Processed iron ore exported during the Exim Policy 1990-93 remained ineligible for additional licence because minerals and iron ore were excluded from the relevant eligibility schedule. The exporter could not rely on an earlier policy once the new policy regime applied, and the incentive was not a vested right but a modifiable export benefit. Promissory estoppel did not apply because the scheme was capable of withdrawal or alteration, and alleged erroneous grants to other exporters did not create a right to equal treatment in illegality. The claim for additional licence was therefore rejected in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to additional licence on the export of processed iron ore made during the currency of the subsequent Exim Policy, and whether promissory estoppel or parity with other exporters could override the ineligibility under the new policy.

Analysis: The export in question was made during the Exim Policy, 1990-93, under which minerals and iron ore were treated as ineligible items in Appendix 12. The benefit of additional licence was an export incentive available only on actual exports of eligible items in the preceding year. The appellant had not challenged the new policy and could not claim a benefit under an earlier policy that was no longer in force. The doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply because the incentive was part of a policy scheme capable of modification or withdrawal, and no exporter had a vested right to claim it as a matter of course. The fact that some other exporters may have been granted the benefit wrongly did not entitle the appellant to similar relief.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to additional licence, and the rejection of the claim was in law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the claim for additional licence could not be sustained under the applicable export policy regime and the incentive could not be claimed as a matter of right.

---