https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74902 Promissory estoppel was applied against the Government where exporters had entered contracts and completed shipments under an earlier export policy that promised twin benefits. A later public notice was treated as a substantive policy change for the product, not a mere alteration in computation, and could not retrospectively defeat benefits already acted upon. The Court rejected the distinction between replenishment licence and cash assistance, holding that both flowed from the same policy promise. Executive necessity was held insufficient to override the promise once relied upon, and the exporters were entitled to the promised export incentives. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74902 Promissory estoppel was applied against the Government where exporters had entered contracts and completed shipments under an earlier export policy that promised twin benefits. A later public notice was treated as a substantive policy change for the product, not a mere alteration in computation, and could not retrospectively defeat benefits already acted upon. The Court rejected the distinction between replenishment licence and cash assistance, holding that both flowed from the same policy promise. Executive necessity was held insufficient to override the promise once relied upon, and the exporters were entitled to the promised export incentives. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74902