https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445492 The Delhi HC held that a notification withdrawing MEIS benefits for FIBC bags could not operate retrospectively from 07.03.2019 because Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 did not authorise retrospective withdrawal of a substantive export incentive without clear statutory sanction. The Court found the selective withdrawal arbitrary and contrary to Article 14, so the notification could take effect only prospectively. As retrospective withdrawal was invalid, exporters who had made shipments during the disputed period remained entitled to have their MEIS claims processed under the scheme as it stood when exports were made, and the pending applications filed under interim directions were ordered to be dealt with in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 07 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jan 2026 14:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445492 The Delhi HC held that a notification withdrawing MEIS benefits for FIBC bags could not operate retrospectively from 07.03.2019 because Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 did not authorise retrospective withdrawal of a substantive export incentive without clear statutory sanction. The Court found the selective withdrawal arbitrary and contrary to Article 14, so the notification could take effect only prospectively. As retrospective withdrawal was invalid, exporters who had made shipments during the disputed period remained entitled to have their MEIS claims processed under the scheme as it stood when exports were made, and the pending applications filed under interim directions were ordered to be dealt with in accordance with law. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 07 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445492