Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The case made out by the petitioner may be summed up thus:-

2.1 The petitioner has been claiming "deemed export benefits" on various power projects and, therefore, has an interest in the legality and propriety of various powers exercised by the respondent no 2, the Director General of Foreign Trade [DGFT] and its subordinates in connection with the processing and grant of the deemed export benefit. The respondent no.1 is the Union of India, responsible for the formulation of the Foreign Trade Policy [FTP] under which the deemed export benefits are available to the petitioner. 2.2 Section-3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 ("FTDR Act") empowers the Central Government to make provision for the development and regulation of foreign trade.

3.2 The power granted to the Respondent No.2 under Para 2.4 of the FTP is to lay down the procedure and therefore, the same cannot be used to introduce substantive law i.e. Duty Drawback Rules. Therefore, Para 8.3.6 of the HOP is liable to be set aside. 3.3 The FTDR Act or FTP does not grant power to the Respondent No.2 and its subordinates to re-determine or re-verify the deemed export benefits once such benefits have been approved or granted as per the provisions of the FTP. In the absence of power under FTDR Act or FTP, the Respondent No.2 and its subordinates cannot assume quasi-judicial power such as power to re-determine or re-verify under administrative guidelines i.e. Para 7 of the ANF-8 Form. Therefore, Para 7 of the ANF-8 is usurpation of quasi-judicial power by the Respondent No.2 and its subordinates and thus, travels beyond the provisions of the FTDR Act as well as FTP and hence, liable to be struck down.