DFIA exemption and actual user condition: Public Notice-based restriction was unenforceable, with revalidation relief also directed.

A post-export, transferable DFIA was treated as not carrying an inherent actual user restriction, and such a condition could not be imposed through a mere Public Notice; if imposed at all, it had to be by notification in the Official Gazette. On that basis, the Public Notice-based restriction was described as illegal and unenforceable against the importer, with consequential DFIA exemption available. The text also notes that, where the licences expired during litigation and could not be used, Customs was directed to issue a certificate to the DGFT to support revalidation, so that denial of utilisation during the dispute did not defeat the scheme benefit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether actual user condition could be imposed on DFIA imports through a Public Notice, and whether the importer was entitled to DFIA exemption without satisfying such condition. (ii) Whether the Customs authorities were required to issue a certificate to the DGFT for revalidation of expired DFIAs.

Issue (i): Whether actual user condition could be imposed on DFIA imports through a Public Notice, and whether the importer was entitled to DFIA exemption without satisfying such condition.

Analysis: The DFIA in question was a post-export, transferable authorisation. In such a scheme, actual user restriction was held to be inconsistent with the nature of the benefit. The restriction was introduced through a Public Notice, but the governing legal position required such a condition, if at all, to be imposed only by a Notification in the Official Gazette. The Tribunal relied on the decisions explaining that delegated legislation must be published in the manner prescribed before it can bind affected persons, and that the DFIA scheme does not carry an inbuilt actual user condition comparable to advance authorisation.

Conclusion: The actual user condition imposed through Public Notice was held to be illegal and unenforceable against the appellant, and the appellant was held entitled to the DFIA benefit and consequential exemption.

Issue (ii): Whether the Customs authorities were required to issue a certificate to the DGFT for revalidation of expired DFIAs.

Analysis: Since the licences could not be utilised during the pendency of the dispute and had expired in the meantime, the Tribunal accepted the request for a factual certificate to enable the appellant to seek revalidation before the DGFT. The Tribunal followed the approach that denial of utilisation during litigation should not deprive the holder of the substantial benefit of the scheme.

Conclusion: The Customs authorities were directed to issue the certificate to the DGFT for revalidation purposes.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in substance, the impugned denial of DFIA benefit was set aside in effect, and consequential relief including issuance of a certificate for revalidation was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A post-export transferable DFIA cannot be subjected to an actual user condition through a mere Public Notice, and where utilisation is prevented by such unlawful restriction, consequential relief for licence revalidation may be directed.

---