Point of Law: Foreign Trade Policy - No time limit can be read into the said provision nor can it be introduced by way of a circular. It is well-settled that a subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond parent statute or impose a limitation or restriction not found in parent statute.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this writ-application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to:

(i) Forthwith revoke the suspension of the Duty Credit Scrips bearing Nos. 3719000681/0/36/00, 3719000683/0/36/00 and 3719000682/0/36/00 issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 and return the said Duty Credit Scrips to the petitioner after extending the validity thereof for a period of 18 months from the date of such return of the said Duty Credit Scrips.

(ii) To issue to the petitioner Duty Credit Scrips under the provisions of the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 against the petitioner's applications bearing File Nos. 37/21/090/00174/AM16, 37/21/090/80077/AM17 and 37/21/090/80078/AM17.

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to amend the shipping bills mentioned in Annexure-G herein above, by permitting the following declaration to be inserted on the shipping bills:

“We intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS).”

By issuing appropriate amendment certificates to this effect.

(C) Such other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be granted.”

2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation are as under:

(a) The writ-applicant is engaged, inter-alia, in the business of exporting Insoluble Sulphur from its unit located at the Adani Port and SEZ, Mundra, Kutch. The writ-applicant is eligible to get the benefits under the MEIS scheme in view of its exports being that of a notified product to the notified countries. The writ-applicant has been exporting Insoluble Sulphur since 1995, and prior to the MEIS scheme, the writ-applicant was availing the export benefits under the Focus Market Scheme of the erstwhile FTP in respect of the Insoluble Sulphur exports. Moreover, even under the MEIS scheme, the writ-applicant has received export benefits in respect of the exports made by it post June 2015. The issue which arises in the present writ-application pertains only to the period between 1.4.2015 and 31.3.2015.

(b) During the period between 1.4.2015 and 31.5.2015, the writ-applicant had exported certain quantities of Insoluble Sulphur from the Mundra Port (a non-EDI port) through various shipping bills. Since the exports were of a notified product and to the notified countries, the writ-applicant was entitled to the benefits under the MEIS scheme. The writ-applicant’s shipping bills bear the endorsement of the authorities of having examined the goods and supervised the stuffing. However, the aforesaid shipping bills did not contain the declaration as per the Clause 3.14 of the Handbook of Procedures. This was only a procedural or a technical lapse. Moreover, if at all such declaration was required, it was a curable defect.

(c) The writ-applicant filed appropriate applications bearing File Nos. 37/21/090/00005/AM16, 37/21/090/00065/AM16, 37/21/090/00172/AM16, 37/21/090/00174/AM16, 37/21/090/80077/AM17, 37/21/090/80078/AM17 respectively to the concerned authorities seeking benefits under the MEIS in respect of the aforesaid exports made by the writ-applicant, and also complied with all the documentary requirements for grant of the rewards.

(d) Against the applications bearing File Nos. 37/21/090/00005/AM16, 37/21/090/00065/AM16 and 37/21/090/00172/AM16 respectively, initially the authorities had raised certain issues including the issue of non-mentioning of the declaration of intent on the shipping bills, and had sought clarification from the DGFT as to whether the declaration was mandatory for the period