$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 21 January 2026 Pronounced on: 23 March 2026 + LPA 314/2019 HOLOFLEX LTD & ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Kumarjit Banerjee, Mr.

Gaurav Gupta and Mr. Rupal Gupta, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Adv. for UOI CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT

% 23.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. REVIEW PET. 160/2021 A. The lis

1. The Union of India, "UOI" hereinafter seeks, by means of this petition, review of judgment dated 28 February 2020, whereby we had allowed LPA 314/2019 and set aside the judgment dated 22 February 2019 passed by learned Single Judge in WP (C) 1816/2019.

2. We may note two features at the outset.

3. Firstly, as recorded in para 23 of the judgment under review, learned Counsel for the UOI had, at that stage, conceded to the position in law as advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant Holoflex Ltd, “Holoflex" hereinafter. Today, it is being sought to be urged that an erroneous concession in law does not bind, and review of the decision can legitimately be sought. Keeping in mind the fact that the issue involves an interpretation of certain provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy, "FTP" hereinafter and the Handbook of Procedures, "HBP" hereinafter 2004-2009, we agreed to entertain the review petition and reconsider the issue.

4. A second feature which requires to be noted is that the total revenue implication in this case is all of ₹ 2 lakhs. Again, as review was sought on a point of law, we have not been allowed ourselves to be swayed by the revenue involved.

5. We now proceed to advert to the judgment, of which review is sought. Allusion to facts, would be made only to the extent necessary for deciding this review petition.

B. The Judgment under Review

6. On 27 January 2005, Holoflex was issued a license under the EPCG, Exports Promotion Capital Goods Scheme, contained in Chapter 5 of the FTP, which permitted Holoflex to import, duty free, capital goods valued at ₹ 2,17,317.25 against corresponding export obligation of ₹ 17,38,538. The export obligation was required to be discharged on or before 27 January

2013.

7. Using the EPCG license issued to it, Holoflex imported capital goods, saving customs duty of ₹ 2,11,237, vide Bill of Entry dated 5 February 2005. The corresponding export obligation which it was required to fulfil was ₹ 16,89,896.

8. On 13 December 2007, Holoflex entered into a Product Purchase Agreement with Nokia India Pvt Ltd, "Nokia" hereinafter, a unit situated in the Nokia Telecom Special Economic Zone, "SEZ" hereinafter,Tamil Nadu, for sale of ICA Holograms manufactured using the imported capital goods. It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the Product Purchase Agreement, holograms were in fact sold by Holoflex to Nokia, of a value greater than the export obligation which Holoflex was required to discharge under the EPCG license, and that payment, thereagainst, was received by Holoflex, as required by the EPCG license. By way of proof of fulfilment of export obligation, Holoflex filed, with the authorities in the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade, "DGFT" hereinafter , the invoices under which the holograms were sold to Nokia, as well as Bank Realisation Certificates, "BRCs" hereinafter evidencing receipt of payment, against the supplies, from Nokia.

9. The DGFT, however, disputed the entitlement of Holoflex to duty exemption under the EPCG license on the ground that proof of fulfilment of export obligation was required to be tendered by Holoflex by producing Bills of Export, "BOEs" hereinafter, and that invoices and BRCs were not sufficient for the purpose. Holoflex contended, per contra, that the supplies by Holoflex to Nokia constituted “deemed exports” under the FTP and that, in respect of deemed exports, Para 5.13(b), (b) For Deemed Exports: of the HBP, issued under the FTP, specified supply invoices accompanied b