Rich Source International vs The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade and The Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade

V. Dhanapalan, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 29.05.2008, confirming the Cancellation

Order dated 05.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent and to direct the 2nd respondent to immediately issue the Post Export Transferable Duty

Free Import Authorisation license to the petitioner for the value of Rs. 24,64,948.90 with validity of 24 months from the date of issue of the Duty

Free Import Authorisation.

The case of the petitioner as stood exposited from the affidavit is, as under:

(i) The petitioner is a entrepreneur engaged in the business of export of garments and fabrics for the past five years. She claims to be a registered

Manufacturer-Exporter of garments and a registered Merchant-Exporter of fabrics. As per the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) Scheme

introduced by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce to encourage small exporters, the petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent herein

on 09.06.2006 for availing the licence under the scheme and the 2nd respondent issued licence to the petitioner under the said scheme having No.

0410082359 for Rs. 24,69,901/- on 22.06.2006. As it is necessary for any manufacturer/exporter of garments to become a member in Apparel

Exporters Promotion Council (AEPC) and any exporter of fabrics to become a member in Federation of Indian Exporters Organisation (FIEO),

the petitioner became a member of both the councils. In this regard, the petitioner by a letter dated 07.06.2006 to the 2nd respondent had clarified

that she is also a merchant-exporter apart from being a manufacturer-exporter and for that purpose, she had obtained RCMC (Registration Cum

Membership Certificate) from FIEO for multi product exports. Thereafter, the petitioner, by letter dated 28.06.2006 to the 2nd respondent,

requested for the transferability of DFIA licence as she had completed the export obligation and received the Foreign Inward Remittance against

her exports even before applying for DFIA licence as per 4.72 of FTP. By another letter dated 06.07.2006 to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner

has stated that she has not imported anything or procured domestic goods and that she has completed the export obligation.

(ii) The FTDO (Foreign Trade Development Officer), by its letter dated 07.07.2006 requested the petitioner for certain documents for waiver of

the registered DFIA license No. 0410082359 dated 22.06.2006. The petitioner, by letter dated 10.07.2006 to the 2nd respondent, replied to all

the queries raised by JDGFT in its letter dated 09.06.2006 and requested them to issue the licence with the transferability/EODC/Bond Waiver.

Accordingly, on 11.07.2006, Bond Waiver and transferability for DFIA licence was granted to the petitioner. By a letter dated 12.07.2006 to the

Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, the petitioner enclosed the DFIA licence along with the other essential documents for the purpose of

verification by the customs authorities. After verification, the customs authorities returned back the documents to the petitioner for transfer in the

market. The 2nd respondent, by letter dated 03.08.2006, asked the petitioner to surrender the DFIA licence, as the 1st respondent found that the

requisite details of the supporting manufacturer were not submitted by the petitioner and that the DFIA licence was issued inadvertently. In this

regard, the petitioner, on 08.08.2006, met the DGFT, at Delhi and asked for the policy clarification of 4.4.2 of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and

4.5.5 and Hand Book of Procedure 2004-09 (HBP).

(iii) The 1st respondent clarified the position and issued the clarification letter dated 11.08.2006 stating that when an exporter seeks export

obligation, redemption and endorsement of transferability, documentary evidences such as SSI registration etc. from the supporting

manufacturer/jobber need not be insisted upon and the copy of the same clarification will be sent to the 2nd respondent as a policy circular. On

14.08.2006, the petitioner met the 2nd respondent and submitted a copy of the letter dated 11.08.2006 issued by the 1st respondent regarding the

clarification. The 2nd respondent JDGFT, Chennai refused to consider the letter dated 11.08.2006 issued by the 1st respondent and stated that

unless it comes under the policy circular, the clarification will not be considered. Thereafter, on 24.08.2006, the Policy Circular No. 17 (RE-

2006)/2004-09 was issued to the effect that in cases, wherein the exporters seek redemption and transferability of DFIA on completion of the

stipulated export obligation, documentary evidence such as SSI registration etc. in respect of supporting manufacturer/jobber may not be insisted

upon.

(iv) On 25.08.2006, the petitioner went to the office of the 2nd respondent and met the Zonal Director personally and stated that in view of the

clarification issued by Circular No. 17, dated 24.08.2006, the DFIA was properly issued and since no tie-up arrangement with the supporting

manufacturer was necessary, the name and address of the manufacturer was sufficient. But, the 2nd respondent ignored the representation of the

petitioner and again referred the matter to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by letter dated 13.11.2006 informed the 2nd respondent that the

policy Circular No. 17 is consistent with the provisions of the current policy as well as the customs notification regarding DFIA scheme. The

petitioner, by letter dated 14.11.2006 to the 2nd respondent referred to the letter dated 13.11.2006 issued by the 1st respondent and submitted

the name and address of the supporting manufacturer as Naveen Textiles, Surat, whose dealer was Sanjri Tex, Surat. The 2nd respondent, by his

letter dated 22.11.2006 asked the petitioner to surrender the original licence on the ground that it was issued in contravention of the provisions of

para 4.4.2 of the Export Import Policy 2005-2009.

(v) Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.02.2007 u/s 9 of the Foreign Trade Development and Regulations Act,

1992 stating that the petitioner had procured the fabric from the traders and not from a manufacturer. The petitioner met the 2nd respondent on

27.03.2007 and 01.03.2007 and submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, that it is not required to submit

the tie-up arrangement with a supporting manufacturer since all the three clarificatory letters and circulars issued by the 1st respondent are self-

explanatory. The 2nd respondent ignored all the explanations, clarificatory letters and the circulars issued by the 1st respondent and issued a

cancellation order dated 05.04.2007 for non-compliance with para 4.4.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy.

(vi) Aggrieved by the cancellation order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 30.04.2007 as prescribed in the Foreign Trade (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent disposed of the appeal, by order dated

04.10.2007, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said arbitrary order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed a writ

petition in W.P. No. 34894 of 2007 before this Court to quash the same and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to immediately issue the Post

Export Transferable Duty Free Import Authorisation to her with validity of 24 months from the date of issuance of the Duty Free Import

Authorisation. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.04.2008, holding that the appellate authority has not applied its mind

while passing an order in the appeal and that the policy circular only states that documentary evidence need not be insisted upon and the

authorisation holder has to only disclose the names and addresses of the supporting manufacturers for the issuance of post Export DFIA. The

order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the 1st respondent was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the 1st respondent with a direction to

consider the said issue specifically raised in the appeal and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. But, the 1st respondent, by order dated

29.05.2008 again dismissed the appeal, refusing to interfere with the cancellation order dated 05.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent. Having

no other alternative, the petitioner is once again before this Court with the present writ petition.

In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the exporter is entitled for authorisation only if he complies with the requisite

formalities and therefore, the Duty Free Import Authorisation has to conform to the relevant provisions of the policy and Customs Notification. As

per the provision of para 4.4.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy, it is very clear that the authorisation can be issued either to a manufacturer Exporter or

a merchant Exporter tied to a supporting manufacturer. According to the respondents, the petitioner has procured the items from some trader and

is trying to bring in misleading provisions. The petitioner has claimed her category as ""Manufacturer Exporter"" not only in the E.Commerce (Online

Application) but also in the manual application submitted by her. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner herself has stated that

she has exported the goods by procuring them from the open market (dealers) and that the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) obtained was

not in conformity with para 4.4.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy and the relevant customs notification, which was noticed at the time of scrutiny of

export documents later. Hence the action taken was in order.

3a. The respondents have further stated that the Policy Circular No. 17, dated 24.08.2006, exempted submission of documentary evidence of

supporting manufacturer, but the petitioner has obtained goods not from a manufacturer but from a trader, which is violative of the provisions of the

Policy and Customs Notification. According to the respondents, the 2nd respondent had rightfully asked the licensee/applicant to surrender the

licence as it was in contravention of the provisions of para 4.4.2 of the Policy. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner had

preferred an appeal against the cancellation order, dated 05.04.2007 and the Appellate Authority considered the appeal and issued the order after

giving an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner was found guilty of mis-representation of facts with regard to manufacturer or exporter

and it could not furnish the details of manufacturer on demand and it did not follow the directions of the competent authority.

3b. It is also the case of the respondents that the requirement of furnishing documentary proof of the Small Scale Industries Unit/Central Excise

Registration Certificate does not arise in the case of the petitioner, since it is a clear case of mis-declaration for availing the benefit of Duty Free

Import Authorisation Scheme, which is meant for a genuine exporter as framed by the Foreign Trade Policy. The respondents further stated that

the petitioner''s mis-declaration in the application and the consequential availment of authorisation to the tune of Rs. 24,64,948.90 against export of

Polyester Fabrics done by S. Bill No. 2365869 dated 10.06.2006 is illegal.

Heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Central

Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent passed the cancellation order without appreciating the

difference between Pre-export DFIA and post export DFIA. According to the Senior Counsel, the 1st respondent failed to appreciate the

erroneous reasonings in the order of the 2nd respondent and refused to set aside the said order. She further contended that the 1st respondent, in

the order dated 04.10.2007 correctly set out the various policy directives in para 3.2, but failed to refer to the letter dated 14.11.2006 given by

the petitioner, in which the name and address of the supporting manufacturer was given as Naveen Textiles. It is also her contention that the 1st

respondent gave a perverse finding that the issue covered by the appeal is relating to export of fabrics and therefore, SSI Regulation Certificate

held by the petitioner for ''garments'' is neither relevant nor acceptable for the DFIAs. In support of her contentions, the learned Senior Counsel

has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Comptroller and Auditor-general of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Another Vs.

K.S. Jagannathan and Another, , relevant paragraphs of which would run thus:

The first contention urged by learned Counsel for the appellants was that the Division Bench of the High Court could not issue a writ of

mandamus to direct a public authority to exercise its discretion in a particular manner. There is a basic fallacy underlying this submission - both with

respect to the order of the Division Bench and the purpose and scope of the writ of mandamus. The High Court had not issued a writ of

mandamus. A writ of mandamus was the relief prayed for by the respondents in their writ petition. What the Division Bench did was to issue

directions to the appellants in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, every High

Court has the power to issue to any person or authority , including in appropriate cases, any government, throughout the territories in relation to

which it exercises jurisdiction, directions, orders, or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto and certiorari or

any of them, for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose. In Dwarka Nath

Vs. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D-ward, Kanpur and Another, , this Court pointed out that Article 226 is designedly couched in a wide

language in order not to confine the power conferred by it only to the power to issue prerogative writs as understood in England, such wide

language being used to enable the High Courts ""to reach injustice where it is found"" and ""to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated

requirements of this country."" In Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa, this Court held that the powers of the courts in England as regards the

control which the Judiciary has over the Executive indicate the minimum limit to which the courts in this country would be prepared to go in

considering the validity of orders passed by the government or its officers.

There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus

or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to

exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised

such discretion mala fide or an irrelevant considerations as by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate

the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other

fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of

mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the

government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties , the court may itself pass an

order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its

discretion.

In reply, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the interpretation made by the petitioner

about pre-export Duty Free Import Authorisation and Post Export Duty Free Import Authorisation are misleading. It is the further case of the

learned Counsel that the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) provision as it existed on the announcement on 01.04.2006 did not provide for

any such classification of pre-export DFIA and post-export DFIA. According to the learned Counsel, the tie-up requirement as stated in para

4.4.2 and the necessity of the Merchant Exporter to export the goods obtained from such manufacturer exporter is necessary to qualify under the

scheme; in the absence of it and as the petitioner herself has stated that the goods have been obtained from the trader in very clear terms, the

petitioner''s claim cannot be considered. To support his case, learned Counsel has relied on the following decisions :

(i) S.B. International Ltd. and Others Vs. Asstt. Director General of Foreign Trade and Others,

It should be noticed that grant of licence is neither a mechanical exercise nor a formality. On receipt of the application, the authorities have to

satisfy themselves about the correctness of the contents of the application. They also have to satisfy themselves that the application satisfies all the

requirements of the scheme and the other applicable provisions of law, if any. In a country like ours, where abuse of such facilities is rampant,

reasonable time has to be afforded to the authorities to process the application (What is a reasonable time, of course, depends on the facts of each

case. No hard and fast limit can be prescribed.) It is only after appropriate verification that the licence is granted.

(ii) Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,

The use of the expression ""substantial compliance"" was made in the background that the searching officer had Section 50 in mind and ti was

unaided by the interpretation placed on it by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case. A line or a word in a judgment cannot be read in

isolation or as if interpreting a statutory provision, to impute a different meaning to the observations.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and the decisions relied on by them; also perused and

materials available on record.

It is seen that the petitioner had applied to the 2nd respondent herein on 09.06.2006 for licence as per the DFIA scheme and that the 2nd

respondent had issued licence to her on 22.06.2006. The petitioner also became a member of AEPC and FIEO, as stipulated. By letter dated

28.06.2006 to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner had requested for transferability of DFIA licence. However, by letter dated 06.07.2006 to the

2nd respondent, the petitioner has stated that she has not imported anything or produced domestic goods and that she has completed the export

obligation in anticipation of DFIA.

It is further seen that the FTDO, by letter dated 07.07.2006, requested the petitioner to furnish documents for a waiver of the registered DFIA

licence dated 22.06.2006 and the petitioner, by letter dated 10.07.2006 to the 2nd respondent, replied to all the queries raised by the JDGFT in

its letter dated 09.06.2006 and requested them to issue the licence with transferability/EODC/Bond Waiver. After requisite verifications, the

Foreign Trade Development Officer granted Bond Waiver and transferability for DFIA licence to the petitioner on 11.07.2006. Thereafter, for the

purpose of customs verification, the petitioner, by letter dated 12.07.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, enclosed the DFIA

licence along with the other essential documents and the customs authorities, after verification, returned back the documents to the petitioner for

transfer in the market. But, the 2nd respondent, by letter dated 03.08.2006, asked the petitioner to surrender the DFIA licence, as the 1st

respondent found that the requisite details of the supporting manufacturer was not submitted by the petitioner and that the DFIA was issued

inadvertently. Pursuant to that, the petitioner met the DGFT at Delhi on 08.08.2006 and asked for policy clarification of 4.4.2 of FTP and 4.5.5

and Hand Book of Procedure 2004-09(HBP) and the 1st respondent clarified the position vide his letter dated 11.08.2006. According to the 1st

respondent, when an exporter seeks export obligation, redemption and endorsement of transferability, documentary evidences such as SSI

registration, etc. from the supporting manufacturer need not be insisted upon.

In reference to the letter dated 13.11.2006 issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner, by letter dated 14.11.2006 to the 2nd respondent

submitted the name and address of the supporting manufacturer as M/s.Naveen Textiles, Surat, whose dealer was M/s. Sanjri Tex, Surat.

Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.02.2007 to the petitioner u/s 9 of the Act, stating that she had procured

fabrics from a trader and not from a manufacturer. Despite all explanations and clarificatory letters on the side of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent

issued a Cancellation Order dated 05.04.2007 for non-compliance of para 4.4.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy. Since the petitioner''s appeal before

the 1st respondent seeking to quash the Cancellation Order passed by the 2nd respondent did not come to her rescue, the petitioner approached

this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P. No. 34894 of 2007 and this Court, by order dated 30.04.2008 disposed of the matter with the

following observation:

From the perusal of the order of the first respondent which is passed u/s 15 of the Foreign Trade Policy, I am of the view that the first

respondent has not applied his mind while passing an order in the appeal. The contention of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner being a SSI

Unit is required to submit the names and addresses of supporting manufacturers and the documentary evidence such as SSI/Central Excess

Registration of supporting manufacturers are also required to be produced by the petitioner is not decided. From the perusal of the circular dated

13.11.2006 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, it is evident that the policy circular only states that documentary evidence need

not be insisted upon and the authorisation holder has to only disclose the names and addresses of the supporting manufacturers for the post Export

DFIA. Hence, the order of the appellate authority is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the said issue

specifically raised in the appeal and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

Though this Court, by the above order had set aside the Cancellation Order passed by the 2nd respondent and remitted the matter to the

appellate authority, the 1st respondent herein, with a direction to consider the issue specifically raised in the appeal, the 1st respondent, by order

dated 29.05.2008, dismissed the appeal for the reasons that (i) the petitioner has herself admitted that she is a manufacturer-exporter of garments

only and in the present case, she had obtained DFIA for the export of fabrics only and not garments (ii) as a merchant exporter of fabrics, the

petitioner is obligated to supply the details of manufacturer (iii) the petitioner is not entitled for DFIA as a fabric exporter, since no details of

manufacturer are given and (iv) Policy Circular No. 17 dated 24.08.2006 stipulates that only a manufacturer-exporter/merchant-exporter tied up

with a particular manufacturer are not to submit details of manufacturer (as it is already either tied or itself is a manufacturer).

Once again, aggrieved by the fresh order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that as

per Clause 4.4.2 of the DFIA scheme, in case of post-export DFIA, a merchant exporter shall be required to mention only name and address of

the manufacturer of the export product and the applicant is required to file application to the concerned RA before effecting exports under DFIA.

While so, it is the case of the respondents that as per the provision of para 4.4.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy, authorisation licence can be issued to

a manufacturer exporter or a merchant exporter tied to a supporting manufacturer; in the absence of tie-up arrangement with a supporting

manufacturer, the DFIA licence was wrongly issued to the petitioner, since it was not in conformity with the DFIA scheme. The respondents

substantiate their case that the petitioner is not eligible for DFIA licence as she had obtained goods from a trader and not from a manufacturer,

which is in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. According to them, the Policy Circular No. 17 and other clarificatory

letters issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) only reiterate about giving exemption for documentary evidence in respect of

supporting manufacturers. Above all, as a merchant exporter of fabrics, it is necessary for the petitioner to have tie-up with a supporting

manufacturer of fabrics, as qualified under the scheme; in the absence of any tie-up and as the petitioner herself has stated that the goods have

been obtained from a trader, her claim ought not to be considered.

Looking into the merits of the case, the question whether the respondents have considered the matter in the light of the Foreign Trade Policy

and the circulars has to be considered in the light of the factual matrix. A reading of the Cancellation Order passed by the 2nd respondent/original

authority would show that the DFIA licence was issued under para 4.4.2 of the FTP, where the petitioner has failed to furnish the details of the

supporting manufacturer, since the DFIA licence was issued on the understanding that the petitioner was a ""Merchant Exporter"" for the export

product for which she does not possess an RCMC for the export product as per her application. But, what is understood from the affidavit of the

petitioner is that the petitioner has obtained RCMC from FIEO for multi- product exports. In the Cancellation Order, the 2nd respondent has also

stated that the petitioner has obtained the DFIA licence without fulfilling the conditions stipulated in para 4.4.2 of the FTP, by mis-declaring the

facts. The appellate authority has upheld the view of the original authority by holding that the petitioner is a manufacturer-exporter of garments only,

but in the case on hand, they have exported fabrics and not garments and obtained DFIA. The main ground on which both the authorities have

dismissed the plea of the petitioner is that, inspite of the obligation to provide the details of the supporting manufacturer, the petitioner, as a

merchant-exporter of fabrics has failed to give the details and hence, the firm is not entitled for DFIA.

As per Section 15 of the Act, the appellate authority, may after giving to the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, if he so desires,

and after making such further inquiries, if any, as it may consider necessary, make such orders as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or reversing the

decision or order appealed against, or may send back the case with such directions as it may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the

case may, be after taking additional evidence if necessary. Provided, that an order enhancing or imposing a penalty or redemption charges or

confiscating goods of a greater value shall not be made under this section unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of making a

representation, and if he so desires of being heard in his defence.

On reading of the above provision, it is vivid that the appellant authority/first respondent had acted in the manner contemplated under the Act,

while disposing of the appeal. It is not the case of the petitioner that the appellate authority has not followed any of the provisions as contemplated

under the Act. An analytical view of the matter would reveal that the issue which raises concern is the name of the supporting manufacturer with

whom the petitioner had tie-up with regard to the export of fabrics.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had applied for licence and it was granted to her after proper

verification, the second respondent cancelled the same. She contended that a mere statement in the affidavit that the petitioner had purchased

goods from a trader and not from a manufacturer cannot be a ground to decide this matter. She relied on a Supreme Court ruling in

K.S.Jaganathan''s case, wherein it is stated that, when a public authority wrongly exercises the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or

a policy decision of the government by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials, a High court is empowered to issue a writ of mandamus

in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties.

As per the Policy Circular No. 17 dated 24.08.2006, for exporters who seek redemption and transferability of DFIA on completion of the

stipulated export obligation, documentary evidence in respect of supporting manufacturer is not insisted upon. Accordingly, the petitioner has given

the name and address of the supporting manufacturer as M/s.Naveen Textiles, Surat. But, the petitioner herself has stated in the affidavit that she

has procured the materials for export from a trader, namely, M/s. Sanjri Tex, Surat. While that be so, the question which immediately arises for

consideration is that when the petitioner has procured goods from a trader, how can she give the name and address of a manufacturer, who has no

direct dealing with the petitioner. The second respondent, mainly relying on this ground, has cancelled the DFIA licence issued to the petitioner.

The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal in the light of the power conferred u/s 15 of the Act and in view of the Foreign Trade Policy.

A question was raised claiming benefit of the Policy Circular No. 17, dated 24.08.2006, whereby, for the exporters, who seek redemption

and transferability of the scheme on completion of the stipulated export obligation, documentary evidence in respect of supporting manufacturer is

not insisted upon. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has applied for the benefit of the scheme on 09.06.2006 and based on the same a

licence was granted on 22.06.2006. However, the petitioner enclosed the essential document for the purpose of verification of the customs

authority on 12.07.2006 and the same was verified and found that the requisite details of supporting manufacturer were not furnished. Therefore,

the 2nd respondent, who is the original authority, cancelled the licence and directed the petitioner to surrender the same on 03.08.2006. The grant

of licence was based on the Foreign Trade Policy No. 4.4.2, which is the basic policy guideline. Hence, any policy circular issued thereafter or the

clarification made by the respondents cannot override the policy guidelines of Foreign Trade Policy, thereby deriving advantage of the benefit of

the scheme by the petitioner. Therefore, the policy circular and the clarifications are later to the granting and cancellation of licence, which will have

no support to the claim of the petitioner. Foreign Trade Policy is the basis principle, on which the DFIA Scheme has been framed and as such the

requirement has to be complied with based thereon. In the absence of any such non-furnishing of the required document, the decision of the

authority cannot be faulted with, which is in accordance with law.

The grant of licence is based on the correctness of the contents of the application and it should satisfy all the requirements of the scheme and

other applicable provisions of law. When a scheme is available, that should be extended to a person who satisfies the requirement of the scheme.

Therefore, the concept of grant of licence under a scheme as well as the Foreign Trade Policy and the circular has to be interpreted in order to

achieve the object of providing the benefit under the scheme to the deserving persons.

In the instant case, it is seen that both the original authority as well as the appellate authority have exercised their powers in accordance with

law and fairly and reasonably considered the policy decision and the petitioner''s entitlement of the benefits under the scheme. They have

considered all the relevant factors and exercised their powers and discretion in such a manner as those eligible alone are benefited under the

scheme. The petitioner herein has not proved her case for entitlement of the benefit under the DFIA scheme and the authorities have rightly looked

into the matter and accordingly cancelled the DFIA licence granted to the petitioner.

In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not made out a case for claim of DFIA licence for the export of fabrics. The

details given by the petitioner that M/s.Naveen Textiles, Surat is their supporting manufacturer for the export of fabrics cannot be taken into

account as she herself has admitted that she has procured the materials from a trader in the open market, whose manufacturer is M/s.Naveen

Textiles. Therefore, when the petitioner has no direct contact or tie-up with the said manufacturer, namely, M/s. Naveen Textiles, she is not

supposed to specify the name of the said manufacturer. In such view of the matter and in the absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned order

passed by the appellate authority, I find no reason to interfere with the said order. However, it is made clear that this order shall not stand in the

way of the petitioner approaching the competent authorities by producing necessary documents in support of her claim, in which event the

authorities concerned are directed to consider the request of the petitioner taking into account the object of the scheme, if the documents are in

order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

The Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above observation and direction. No costs.