The Supreme Court has observed that when the new Exim Policy 1990-93 is held to be applicable under which on export of 'Minerals and Iron Ore", there shall not be any benefit of additional licence, the exporter appellant cannot claim the benefit of additional license under the old Exim Policy.

The bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari was dealing with an appeal challenging the Order of the Bombay High Court refusing the benefit of additional license to the appellant on the export of processed iron ore during the period April, 1990 to March, 1991.

Senior Advocate Ravindra Shrivastava appeared on behalf of the appellant and Additional Solicitor General of India N. Venkataraman appeared for Respondents.

In this case, the appellant claimed the benefit of additional license on the export of "processed iron ore" exported during the Exim Policy 1990-93.

It is an admitted position that the "processed iron ore" was exported during April, 1990 to March, 1991.

Under the Exim Policy 1990-93, "Minerals and Iron Ore" are included in the list of ineligible items. As per Exim Policy 1988-1991, only the export of "unprocessed iron ore" was ineligible to get the benefit of additional licence.

However, when the new Exim Policy 1990-93 came into existence, the "Minerals and Iron Ore" are in the list of ineligible items – the appellant had actually exported "processed iron ore" during the period April, 1990 to March, 1991, which was under the regime of new Exim Policy 1990- 93 and under the new Exim Policy 1990-93, the export of "Minerals and Iron Ore" are included in the list of ineligible items, the appellant has been denied the benefit of additional licence.

The Court observed that the appellant exported the "processed iron ore", i.e., during the period between April, 1990 to March, 1991, the "Minerals and Iron Ore" as per Appendix 12 were in the list of ineligible items, the appellant is rightly denied the benefit of additional licence.

The appellant also claimed the benefit of additional licence under the Exim Policy 1988-91 on the ground of promissory estoppel.

However, the Court noted that "…the benefit of additional licence was in the form of an incentive. The DEFT/Union is free to change the Exim Policy and consider from time to time on which items there shall be an incentive and on which items there shall not be any incentive. To grant the benefit of an incentive is a policy decision which may be varied and/or even withdrawn. No exporter can claim the incentive as a matter of right. Under the circumstances, the doctrine of promissory estoppel shall not be applicable to such a policy decision with respect to incentive…"

Thus, the Court held that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of additional licence on export of "Minerals and Iron Ore", and that the appellant cannot be allowed such benefit, which otherwise the appellant is held not entitled to.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title- Chowgule & Company Limited v. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade & Others

Click here to read/download the Judgment



Supreme CourtJustice MR ShahJustice Krishna Murari

Ashish Shaji