Retrospective withdrawal of export incentive benefits rejected where entitlement accrued under the policy in force at the time of export.

Entitlement to an additional import licence was held to arise from exports made under the policy then in force, so a later amendment to the Import & Export Policy, 1990-1993 could not retrospectively withdraw benefits already attached to completed exports. The court treated admissibility under Para 220(1) as governed by the policy prevailing at the time of export and recognised a vested entitlement that later insertion of the product in Appendix 12 could not defeat by implication. It further held that notices, suspension, and proposed cancellation were invalid because they were issued without the procedural foundation required by Clauses 9 and 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 and without any sustainable basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or other lawful ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended Import & Export Policy, 1990-1993 could be applied to deny additional licence benefits arising from exports made during the earlier policy period; (ii) Whether the impugned notices, suspension order, and proposed cancellation of the additional licence were valid under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955.

Issue (i): Whether the amended Import & Export Policy, 1990-1993 could be applied to deny additional licence benefits arising from exports made during the earlier policy period.

Analysis: The entitlement to an additional licence depended on the expression "admissible exports made in the preceding licensing year" in Para 220(1) of the 1990-1993 Policy. The relevant exports were made when the earlier policy was in force, and the judgment held that admissibility must be judged with reference to the policy prevailing at the time of export. The later amendment placing the product in Appendix 12 could not, by implication, be read into Para 220(1) so as to destroy benefits already attached to completed exports. The policy change was held to operate prospectively, and the existence of a vested entitlement arising from earlier eligible exports was recognised.

Conclusion: The amended policy could not retrospectively defeat the entitlement to the additional licence; the exporter remained entitled to the benefit.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notices, suspension order, and proposed cancellation of the additional licence were valid under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955.

Analysis: The notices were issued before any proper cancellation proceeding was initiated, and the suspension order was made without the procedural foundation required by Clause 9 and Clause 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The record did not establish any legally sustainable ground that the licence had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or contrary to the Order. The authority also failed to justify the recall of the licence by reference to a valid power under the Control Order.

Conclusion: The impugned notices, suspension order, and subsequent show cause notice were invalid and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the petitioner was entitled to the licence-related reliefs, and the authority's attempt to nullify the licence was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where export incentive entitlement accrues under the policy in force at the time of export, a later amendment cannot retrospectively withdraw that benefit unless the subsequent policy clearly and expressly provides for such withdrawal.

---