Policy classification on export licence revalidation upheld; courts cannot grant customs exemption outside the statutory framework.

A policy distinction between licence holders who had completed the export obligation and those who had not was upheld because the extended time applied only to the latter group and had a rational nexus with the objective of promoting exports. Licence holders who had already obtained transferability remained governed by the original framework, under which validity continued only for the balance period or six months from endorsement, and no further extension was contemplated. The classification was therefore not hostile discrimination. The Court also noted that customs exemption under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is a statutory function of the competent authority, and judicial relief under Article 226 cannot confer a relaxation or exemption outside that framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned public notice denying revalidation to advance licence holders who had already obtained endorsement of transferability was arbitrary or discriminatory, and whether the Court could direct extension or revalidation of the licence under the earlier export-import policy.

Analysis: The classification made by the public notice was between licence holders who had completed the export obligation and those who had not. The policy extended time only for the latter group, with the object of encouraging exports. Licence holders who had already obtained transferability were governed by the original policy framework under which the licence remained valid for the balance period or six months from endorsement, and no further extension was contemplated by the impugned notice. The Court held that the distinction rested on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the policy objective, and therefore did not amount to hostile discrimination. It further held that exemption from customs duty under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was a statutory function vested in the competent authority, and the Court could not grant a relaxation or exemption by judicial under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The challenge to the public notice failed, and the plea for revalidation or further relief was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The policy distinction between completed and uncompleted export obligations was upheld, and no judicial direction could be issued to extend the licence or confer a customs exemption outside the statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: A policy classification affecting customs exemption is valid if it is based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the policy objective, and a court cannot grant a customs relaxation or exemption that the statute entrusts to the competent authority.

---