24.07.2025 Item No. 03 Ct. 05 Sayandeep/sb WPA 13022 of 2025 S.A. Exports versus Additional District General of Foreign Trade & Ors.

Mr. Anurag Roy Mr. Aayush Sharma Mr. Dhirodatto Chaudhuri …For the petitioner Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld.DSGI Mr. Rishav Kumar Thakur …..For the respondents

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for direction upon the respondent No. 1 to consider the representations made by the petitioner in connection with the issue of balance duty credit script amounting to Rs. 16,637,438.86/-. The petitioner claims to be a registered partnership and is engaged in the business of foreign trade. The petitioner is interested in seeking the benefit of a Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court to Delhi in the case of M/s. Welldone Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director General of Foreign Trade reported in 2018 SCC online Delhi 8480 as regards the interpretation of the notification No. 3 dated 18^th April, 2013 and notification No. 43 dated 25^th September, 2013 issued an exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) which specifically deals with the Incremental Exports incentivisation Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme).

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner being entitled to benefit of the said Scheme had duly made an application in requisite format before the appropriate authorities for the export period that is 1^st April, 2013 to 31^st March, 2014 vis a vis 1^st April, 2012 to 31st March, 2013, in format ANF 3F with the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries. Accordingly, the petitioner had computed the export eligibility having regard to the cap provided in the notification No. 43 dated 25^th September, 2013 to the extent of Rs. 1 crores notwithstanding the entitlement of the petitioner being Rs. 16,637,438.86/-. The aforesaid fact would corroborate from paragraph no. B-3 of the application filed by the petitioner on 23^rd January, 2015.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Foreign Trade Development Officer had permitted credit to the petitioner vide authorization letter dated 14th May, 2015 to the extent of Rs.1 crore. By the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Welldone Exim Pvt. Ltd. (supra) taking into consideration the aforesaid notifications in paragraph 6 thereof had observed as follows:-

“6. The aforesaid public notice in our opinion settles the position beyond any doubt and debate. This public notice clarifies that amendment in form of clauses (i) and (ii) to paragraph 3.14.5 (c) of Foreign Trade Policy were to ensure that annual claims n excess of Rs.1 crore should be subjected to greater scrutiny by the Regional Authority. In other words, the two newly inserted clauses had to be read harmoniously. Clauses (i) and (ii) were not introduced and inserted as clauses, but as a part of sub- paragraph (c) to paragraph 3.14.5. Clauses (i) did not put or prescribe an upper limit. To interpret it differently would make clause (ii) otiose and redundant. The public notice No. 28/2009-14 (RE-2-013) dated 25^th September, 2013 had set out the procedure for scrutiny of claims in excess of Rs.1 crore by giving details of the documents and particulars to be submitted by the exporter. Clearly, this was not required and necessary if R. 1 crore was the upper limit, and therefore claims over this amount were not required to be scrutinized and examined”.

4. Although a Special Leave Petition was file before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was registered as Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(S) 12878 of 2019, by an order dated 18^th July, 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after condoning the delay had dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Following the above, by an order dated 25^th August, 2023, Coordinate Bench of this Court in respect of a person claiming duty credit scrip had directed the authorities to consider such representation.

5. Mr. Roy,