Export incentive entitlement depends on completion of customs procedure before the policy change, not mere physical arrival of goods.

Entitlement to the higher DEPB export incentive depended on completion of the prescribed customs procedure before the policy change took effect. Physical delivery of goods into the customs area was not enough where arrival had not been recorded in the EDI system and clubbing permission had not yet been obtained for the consolidated shipment. The analysis states that the protective policy and circular applied only after the required procedural conditions for examination, clearance and arrival recording were satisfied, so the later reduced rate applied when those conditions were completed only on 1 April 2000. It also notes that legitimate expectation could not override non-compliance with the prescribed export procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exporter was entitled to the higher DEPB rate prevailing on 31 March 2000 when the goods were handed over to the customs area on 29 March 2000 and 31 March 2000, but the goods arrival was recorded in the EDI system only on 1 April 2000 after clubbing permission was granted.

Analysis: The policy and circular relied upon by the exporter protected consignments already handed over to the customs authorities for examination and clearance, but that protection operated only when the relevant procedural requirements for export processing had been satisfied. Under the customs EDI procedure, arrival had to be recorded after receipt of the full consignment with duly numbered packages, and in a case involving clubbing of several shipping bills into one container, permission from the competent authority was required. The factual findings recorded by the customs authorities showed that the last batch reached the shed late on 31 March 2000, that package details were not available then, and that clubbing permission was obtained only on 1 April 2000. In those circumstances, the exporter could not claim the earlier DEPB rate merely because the goods had physically come into the customs area before the rate change. The plea of legitimate expectation also failed because the benefit depended on compliance with the prescribed procedure, and the exporter could not rely on its own procedural default. The High Court also declined to interfere with the reasoned factual findings in writ jurisdiction absent irrationality.

Conclusion: The exporter was not entitled to the higher DEPB rate of 31 March 2000, and the customs authorities were justified in applying the reduced rate effective from 1 April 2000.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the relevant export-benefit conditions were not fully satisfied before the rate revision took effect, and the factual determination of the customs authorities was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where entitlement to an export incentive depends on completion of prescribed customs procedures, physical arrival of goods alone does not confer the earlier rate unless the conditions for recording arrival and clearance are fulfilled before the change in policy takes effect.

---