Discretionary foreign trade policy relaxation denied where MEIS claim was delayed and committee's refusal was not arbitrary.

Relaxation under paragraph 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy is discretionary and available only on genuine hardship, adverse trade impact or public interest; it is not a matter of right. The petitioner had missed the prescribed period for claiming MEIS benefit, and for some shipping bills export proceeds were realised beyond the policy period. The Policy Relaxation Committee distinguished between cases where realisation was within three years and those where it was not, and declined relief. Judicial review of that refusal is limited, and interference is justified only if the decision is perverse, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the governing framework. The challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled, as a matter of right, to relaxation under paragraph 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 for extension of time to claim MEIS benefit, and whether the rejection by the Policy Relaxation Committee warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Paragraph 2.58 empowers the DGFT to grant exemption, relaxation or relief only in cases of genuine hardship, adverse impact on trade or public interest, and the power is discretionary. The petitioner had not claimed the MEIS benefit within the prescribed period, including the extended period available with late cut, and in respect of some shipping bills the realization of export proceeds itself occurred beyond the policy period. The Policy Relaxation Committee considered the request, distinguished between shipping bills where realization was within three years and those where it was beyond three years, and concluded that the case did not justify relaxation. The scope of judicial review over such a policy decision is limited and interference is not warranted unless the decision is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, capricious or otherwise contrary to the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relaxation as of right, and the refusal of the Policy Relaxation Committee did not call for interference. The challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Relaxation under paragraph 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy is a discretionary exemption based on genuine hardship or public interest, and a court will not interfere with the Policy Relaxation Committee's refusal unless the decision is shown to be perverse, arbitrary or otherwise illegal.

---