https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46390 A policy distinction between licence holders who had completed the export obligation and those who had not was upheld because the extended time applied only to the latter group and had a rational nexus with the objective of promoting exports. Licence holders who had already obtained transferability remained governed by the original framework, under which validity continued only for the balance period or six months from endorsement, and no further extension was contemplated. The classification was therefore not hostile discrimination. The Court also noted that customs exemption under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is a statutory function of the competent authority, and judicial relief under Article 226 cannot confer a relaxation or exemption outside that framework. en-us Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:41:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46390 A policy distinction between licence holders who had completed the export obligation and those who had not was upheld because the extended time applied only to the latter group and had a rational nexus with the objective of promoting exports. Licence holders who had already obtained transferability remained governed by the original framework, under which validity continued only for the balance period or six months from endorsement, and no further extension was contemplated. The classification was therefore not hostile discrimination. The Court also noted that customs exemption under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is a statutory function of the competent authority, and judicial relief under Article 226 cannot confer a relaxation or exemption outside that framework. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46390