Summary
Chowgule, a recognised trading house, contracted in February 1990 to export processed iron ore. Under the 1988-91 Exim Policy only unprocessed ores were ineligible for additional licences. The exports were made between April 1990 and March 1991, after the 1990-93 policy had listed all "minerals and ores" as ineligible. Its claim for an additional licence was rejected, and the Bombay High Court at Goa upheld the rejection on remand. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. An additional licence is earned on actual exports in the preceding year, so the policy in force when the goods were exported governs. Chowgule had never challenged the new policy. An incentive is a policy matter that may be withdrawn, so promissory estoppel does not apply. Benefits wrongly given to other exporters cannot found a claim of parity.
Issues
- Whether an exporter was entitled to an additional licence for processed iron ore exported during the 1990-93 Exim Policy, which listed minerals and ores as ineligible, because its export contract was made under the 1988-91 policy.
- Whether promissory estoppel or parity with other exporters supported the claim.
Provisions considered
- Appendix 12 (ineligible items), Exim Policy, 1990-93Processed iron ore exported during the policy's currency fell within 'minerals and ores' and was ineligible for additional licence. (¶¶ 2, 5)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaNo negative discrimination can be claimed on the basis that other exporters were wrongly granted the benefit outside the scheme. (¶ 8)
Held
- The additional licence is an incentive available only on actual exports of eligible items in the preceding year, so the relevant date is the date of export; as the exports were made under the 1990-93 policy, which the appellant never challenged, they were ineligible. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
- Grant of an incentive is a policy decision that may be varied or withdrawn and cannot be claimed as of right, so promissory estoppel does not apply merely because the export contract was made while the earlier policy was in force. (¶ 7)
- That some other exporters were granted the benefit wrongly cannot entitle the appellant to it, as there can be no negative discrimination perpetuating illegality; the Court regretted that the enquiry directed by the High Court into those grants had not been held. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Bombay High Court's judgment upholding the denial of additional licence affirmed; no order as to costs.