Foreign Trade Policy clarification cannot narrow plastics sector incentive entitlement where the policy already treats the sector as eligible.

The Foreign Trade Policy treated the plastics sector as eligible for the Status Holder Incentive Scrip, and a clarification could not introduce a new restriction where the policy text was clear. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 places policy formulation and amendment with the Central Government under Section 5, while the Director General of Foreign Trade under Section 6 may advise on and implement the policy, not rewrite it by interpretation. As the exporter belonged to the plastics sector covered by the policy, the rejection of the incentive entitlement was unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Director General of Foreign Trade could restrict the Status Holder Incentive Scrip entitlement for the plastics sector by clarification, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the incentive under the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis: The Foreign Trade Policy treated the plastics sector as an eligible category for the incentive. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 vests the power to formulate and amend the foreign trade policy in the Central Government under Section 5, while Section 6 empowers the Director General to advise on and carry out the policy. A clarification issued in the guise of interpretation cannot add a new restriction or rewrite the policy when the policy text itself is clear. Since the petitioner was an exporter in the plastics sector and the policy covered that sector, the restriction introduced by the respondent could not stand.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the incentive, and the impugned rejection was unsustainable.

---