( 1 ) THE present petition has been preferred challenging the notification No. 8 of 2005 dated 12th June, 2006 issued by Director General of Foreign Trade and Ex,-Offico Additional Secretary to the Government of India (Annexure "a" to the memo of the petition), whereby with retrospective effect, clause 3. 7. 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, has been amended, consequently, the percentage of the duty credit entitlement has been reduced.

( 2 ) AN important issue which has arisen for adjudication of this Court is :

Whether the respondents have power to issue Notification amending the foreign Trade Policy with restrospective effect so that the right, which has already accrued in favour of the petitioner can be taken away?

( 3 ) LEARNED Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta associates for the petitioners mainly submitted that Foreign Trade Policy has been drafted in pursuance of Sec. 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1992" ). As per this foreign Trade Policy, "target Plus Scheme" (T. P. S.) has been introduced under clause 3. 7 of Foreign Trade Policy with a view to accelerate growth in exports by rewarding Star Export Houses, who have achieved a quantum growth in exports.

( 4 ) IT is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as the said Target Plus Scheme for the year 2005-2006, (1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2006), all the conditions imposed in target Plus Scheme have been fulfilled by the petitioners, and therefore, they are entitled to get duty credit entitlement at the rate of 10% of the incremental growth in export for the year 2005-2006 which has 34. 06%. The total turnover for the year 2004-2005 was rs. 1039. 70 Crores. For the year 2005-2006 because of Target Plus Scheme enshrined in Foreign Trade Policy, the petitioners achieved exports to the tune of Rs. 1393. 84 Crores. Thus, the petitioners achieved quantum growth of exports at a 34. 06%, as against the minimum requirement of 20%. Therefore, as per clause 3. 7. 3. of the Target Plus Scheme in Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, the petitioners are entitled to get 10% duty credit entitlement.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per Handbook of Procedure (Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009), Part-Il of Chapter III provides for promotional measures wherein, as per Clause 3. 2. 5, a duty credit entitlement certificate ought to be issued by the respondent-authorities, if the conditions imposed are fulfilled. For this, an application can be preferred on or before 31st December. Thus, after the completion of the year 2004-2005, the petitioners were preparing for preferring an application to get duty credit entitlement certificate from the respondent-authorities, on the basis of the right already accrued in favour of the petitioners. Meanwhile, a Notification dated 12th June, 2006 (Annexure "a" to the memo of the petition) has been issued by the respondent-authorities, whereby the percentage of duty credit entitlement has been reduced. Instead of 10%, it has been revised as 5%. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Notification dated 12th June, 2006 has been illegally given retrospective effect. e. from 1st April, 2005. Parent Act namely Foreign trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 does not permit to draft and policy with restrospective effect. Section 5 of the Act of 1992 does not contemplate any policy, which can be effected with retrospective effect, and therefore, the Notification dated 12th June, 2006 at Annexure "a" to the memo of the petition, which modifies the Clause 3. 7. 3 with restrospective effect deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that once the right is already accrued in favour of the petitioners, it cannot be taken away by the respondents, therefore, such an amendment can be given prospective effect. Learned Counse