Change-in-law relief requires a legally effective change; press releases and in-situ power plant claims did not qualify.

A contractual change-in-law clause is triggered only by a legally effective change within the contract's defined categories; a press release alone is not enough, and the relevant change arose only when customs notifications were issued. Deemed export benefits under Para 8.3 of the FTP 2009-2014 were unavailable because an integrated coal-based thermal power plant assembled in situ was not treated as goods supplied for deemed export, and the required ICB-based procurement conditions were not shown. As neither a valid change in law nor an underlying entitlement was established, no restitutionary compensation could be claimed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the press release concerning change in threshold for mega power project benefits constituted a "Change in Law" under the power purchase agreement; (ii) Whether deemed export benefits under Para 8.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 were available to the power projects as on the bid cut-off date; and (iii) Whether restitutionary compensation was payable.

Issue (i): Whether the press release concerning change in threshold for mega power project benefits constituted a "Change in Law" under the power purchase agreement.

Analysis: The contractual definition of "Change in Law" was confined to enactment, modification, repeal, or a change in interpretation by a competent authority. A press release by itself did not amount to law, and the governing change occurred only when the subsequent customs notifications were issued in the prescribed manner. The earlier press release did not create an enforceable legal change for contractual compensation purposes.

Conclusion: The press release did not constitute a "Change in Law".

Issue (ii): Whether deemed export benefits under Para 8.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 were available to the power projects as on the bid cut-off date.

Analysis: Deemed export benefits were available only for goods that were manufactured in India, supplied as goods, supplied by a main contractor or sub-contractor, and procured in accordance with the prescribed ICB framework. An integrated coal-based thermal power plant assembled in situ was not treated as goods capable of being supplied for deemed export benefits. The projects also failed to establish compliance with the relevant procurement requirements under the policy.

Conclusion: The deemed export benefits were not available to the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether restitutionary compensation was payable.

Analysis: Compensation under the contractual change-in-law mechanism depended on establishing an operative change in law and a qualifying entitlement affected by it. Since neither the claimed change in law nor the underlying entitlement to deemed export benefits was established, no restitutionary adjustment could arise.

Conclusion: No restitutionary compensation was payable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the merits, and the impugned order was not disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual change-in-law clause is triggered only by a legally effective change within the contractual definition, and deemed export incentives cannot be claimed for an in-situ power plant that does not satisfy the statutory requirements of goods, manufacture, supply, and ICB-based procurement.

---