9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the extension of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) benefit at the rate of 23% to the Petitioner for exports made during 1997-1998, and the quashing of an order by the Appellate Committee regarding the DEPB appeal. Extension of DEPB Benefit at 23%: The Petitioner, a reputed exporting house, negotiated an order for jackets from a company in the USA in March 1998. The negotiations factored in a 23% DEPB credit rate on gents jackets. While the initial DEPB benefit was granted at 23%, subsequent shipments were only given DEPB at 20% with a value cap of Rs. 200 per piece. The Petitioner claimed a loss of around Rs. 19 lakhs due to this discrepancy and invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel to argue that changes in DEPB credit entitlement should only apply to contracts entered into after the policy amendment in April 1998. Legal Arguments and Precedents: The Petitioner's argument was supported by legal precedents such as Union of India v. Hindustan Platinum, emphasizing the importance of honoring commitments made prior to policy changes. The Court referred to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and held that the amended Exim policy should not apply to contracts concluded before the policy change, even if physical exports occurred post-amendment. Judgment and Direction: The Court directed the Respondents to grant the Petitioner the DEPB benefit at 23% for the period 1997-1998. The Respondent was instructed to calculate the differential amount owed to the Petitioner within four weeks, along with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of filing the writ petition. The judgment was in favor of the Petitioner, and the writ petition was disposed of with costs of Rs. 5,000 to be paid by the Respondents within eight weeks.
|
