Foreign trade policy limits DGFT procedure: warehoused goods could not be excluded from later TRQ clearance.

The Foreign Trade Policy permits goods already imported, shipped or arrived in advance, if warehoused, to be cleared against a later authorisation, and the DGFT may issue public notices only to implement the policy, not amend it. A condition excluding warehoused goods already at Indian ports before the TRQ licence date was treated as contrary to paragraph 2.13 and beyond the DGFT's procedural power. The impugned condition was therefore held ultra vires and liable to be quashed, together with the corresponding TRQ condition, and the petitioner was held entitled to refund of excess duty and return of the bank guarantee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the DGFT could, by public notice and the corresponding TRQ condition, impose a restriction that goods already imported, warehoused or lying at Indian ports before the issue of the TRQ licence would not be eligible for clearance against the subsequent authorisation, notwithstanding the Foreign Trade Policy provision permitting clearance of warehoused goods against a later authorisation.

Analysis: Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 vests the power to formulate and amend the Foreign Trade Policy in the Central Government, while Section 3(2) reserves to the Central Government the power to regulate imports and exports. Under Paragraphs 1.03 and 2.04 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, the DGFT may notify or amend procedure through public notice, but only for implementation of the policy. Paragraph 2.13 specifically permits goods already imported, shipped or arrived in advance, if warehoused, to be cleared against an authorisation issued subsequently. The impugned condition, which excluded warehoused goods already at Indian ports before the licence date, directly contradicted that policy provision and was not a mere procedural direction. It therefore amounted to an impermissible amendment of the policy by the DGFT, a power not entrusted to that authority.

Conclusion: The impugned condition was held to be ultra vires and liable to be quashed, along with the corresponding TRQ condition. The petitioner was entitled to refund of excess duty and return of the bank guarantee.

---