Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The petitioner claims that since no action was taken by PRC with regard to its application dated 09.10.2014, the petitioner filed another application dated 23.06.2015 once again requesting for extension of time to perform its export obligation. The aforesaid application was rejected by a communication dated 22.09.2016 for the reason that the petitioner had not fulfilled 50% of the export obligation as required under paragraph 4.42(c) of the Hand Book of Procedures (HoP) 2015-20. It was further pointed out that appendix 4J of the HoP had been amended by limiting the extension of export obligation period to six months.

8. On 07.12.2015, the petitioner once again applied for extension of the export obligation period, which was denied by a communication dated 08.03.2016.

9. Mr Somnath Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that the petitioner had faced a genuine difficulty in performing its export obligation on account of the PIL filed before the Allahabad High Court pursuant to which the stock of white sugar owned by the petitioner was taken control of by the Government. He contended that the petitioner had filed an application before the District Magistrate for release of sugar for purposes of export but the same was not entertained. Next, he contended that DGFT had grossly erred in considering the petitioner's application in terms of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-20, which was notified on 01.04.2015. He stated that the notification dated 01.05.2015 whereby, appendix 4J of the HoP 2015-20 was amended to restrict the extension of export obligation to a period to six months in case of raw sugar could not applied, retrospectively. He contended that the petitioner had a vested right to be considered under the FTP and HoP as existing prior to 01.04.2015.