Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992

25 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S LIBERTY INDIAversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2009 INSC 109431 August 2009Dismissed

Liberty India, a partnership firm operating a small‑scale industrial undertaking, claimed a deduction under s.80‑18 of the Income‑Tax Act for profits arising from Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEP8) and duty‑drawback credits that were posted to its profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, holding

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR.versusM/S. KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR.

2015 INSC 79927 October 2015Disposed off

The case concerned the validity of several amendments to the Export-Import (EXIM) Policy 2002-2007 made by Notification No. 28 (Jan 28, 2004) and subsequent public notices and notifications (Jan 28 2004 Public Notice, Apr 21 & 23 2004 Notifications). Exporters alleged that these changes were retrospective, ultra vires,

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusAGRICAS LLP AND OTHERS ETC.

2020 INSC 50826 August 2020Disposed off

The Union of India amended the import policy for peas and other pulses, shifting them from a free to a restricted category and imposing quantitative import limits through notifications and a trade notice issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act). Importers challenged the validity

HARIS MARINE PRODUCTSversusEXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION (ECGC) LIMITED

2022 INSC 47125 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Harish Marine Products (the appellant) purchased a Single Buyer Exposure Policy from Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) covering the risk of a foreign buyer’s non‑payment for goods exported between 14‑12‑2012 and 13‑12‑2013. The goods were loaded onto the vessel on 13‑12‑2012 (as per the Bill of Lading) and the

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM, NEW DELHIversusM/S BROOKS INTERNA TI ON AL AND ORS.

2007 INSC 66524 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned appeals by the Commissioner of Customs against the confiscation of a consignment of readymade garments exported by Mis Brooks International for duty drawback. The revenue authorities seized the goods, invoking Sections 113(c) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging that the market value of the goo

M/S ATUL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN-9

2009 INSC 24824 February 2009Dismissed

The appellant imported second‑hand photocopier machines in January 2005 under the "general imports" category of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2004‑09. The Customs authority treated the machines as "restricted" under para 2.17 of the FTP, relying on DGFT circulars and seized them. The Supreme Court held that the machin

SUNILA JAINversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2006 INSC 10524 February 2006Dismissed

Sunila Jain appealed against a preventive detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) against her husband, D.K. Jain, who had been released on bail by the Special Court of Economic Offences on the ground that the alleged offence was bailable. T

UNION OF INDIAversusT. R. MEHRA ETC. ETC.

2019 INSC 92921 August 2019Dismissed

The Union of India appealed against a show‑cause notice issued to respondents for importing certain goods in August 1997, which was based on an order dated 14‑Nov‑1986 issued under Clause 8(1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1986. After the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 came into force, the impor

PARISONSAGROTECH (P) LTD. &ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 59721 August 2015Dismissed

The appellants, manufacturers of edible oils, challenged two Central Government notifications that prohibited the import of crude palm oil through Kerala ports, arguing that the notifications were ultra vires the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and violated Article 14 by arbitrarily discriminating

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.versusM/S VEEJAY INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) AND ORS.

2007 INSC 15920 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal issued the West Bengal Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1997 under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, containing clauses 9 and 10 that regulated storage, transport and export of rice and paddy. A writ petition challenged these clauses as being inconsistent with the export‑import policy framed un

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S. RAJ GROW IMPEX LLP & ORS.

2021 INSC 30717 June 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India challenged the Bombay High Court's orders directing the release of large quantities of yellow peas imported by M/s. Raj Grow Impex LLP and M/s. Harihar Collections, which were imported in excess of the quantitative limits and without the required licence under the 2019 FTDR notifications. The issue w

CHOWDARAPU RAGHUNANDANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

2002 INSC 14515 March 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner was detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 after customs seized a large quantity of dutiable cell‑phones from his baggage at Chennai Airport. He claimed the goods were not his, that the customs statement was made under coerc

M/S. NOLA RAM DULICHAND DAL MILLS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 18614 February 2020Dismissed

The appellant, M/s Nola Ram Dulichand Dal Mills, challenged a 2009 circular that clarified exports by 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) were ineligible for duty credit under the Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna scheme for 2006-07. The High Court dismissed the writ, and the Supreme Court examined whether the circular amounted

UNION OF INDIAversusPAUL MANICKAM AND ANR.

2003 INSC 54013 October 2003Dismissed

The Union of India appealed against a Madras High Court order that quashed a preventive detention order passed under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 against Smt. Ratnamala (referred to as the detenu). The detenu’s father had made a representation

M/S. BARAKA OVERSEAS TRADERSversusDIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR.

2006 INSC 59311 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Mis Baraka Overseas Traders obtained three advance licences for exporting fresh frozen seafood under the EXIM Policy 1997‑2002. After fulfilling export obligations it applied for endorsement of transferability, which the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) refused on the ground that the licences were wrongly place

M/S TOPMAN EXPORTSversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

2012 INSC 838 February 2012Disposed off

Mis Topman Exports sold its Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) and claimed a deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2002-03. The Assessing Officer treated the entire sale proceeds as profit on transfer under section 28(iiid), denying the deduction. The Tribunal held that DEPB is cash

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES

2006 INSC 7937 November 2006Disposed off

The Central Government issued a notification on 27 June 2006 banning the export of pulses and a subsequent notification on 4 July 2006 permitting export against irrevocable letters of credit opened before 22 June 2006. Exporters who had already obtained Let‑Export orders and complied with Section 51 of the Customs Act

M/S. TAARIKA EXPORTS AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2007 INSC 5267 May 2007Disposed off

Mis. Taarika Exports and others were granted an advance licence to import raw materials free of customs duty, subject to an export obligation to ship 5,400 mulberry silk jackets within nine months. The company imported the raw materials, exported only part of the finished goods and failed to meet the export quota, prom

M/S. YASHA OVERSEASversusCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX & ORS.

2008 INSC 5866 May 2008Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a batch of six appeals concerning the taxability of Replenishment Licences (REP licences) and the Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) scheme under various State sales tax statutes. The appellants argued that the three‑judge decision in Vikas Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

GURDEV SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 5545 November 2001Dismissed

The appellant Gurdev Singh challenged the detention of his son, Swarn Singh Sandhu, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), alleging misuse of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) export incentive scheme and forging shipping bills. The det

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S. B.T. PATIL AND SONS BELGAUM (CONSTRUCTION) PVT. LTD

2024 INSC 835 February 2024Dismissed

The respondent, a class‑I civil contractor, completed work on the Koyna Hydro Electric Project funded by the World Bank and claimed duty drawback as a "deemed export" under the Exim Policy 1992‑1997. After multiple rejections by the DGFT, a Policy Interpretation Committee in 2002 allowed the drawback, which was paid in

REXNORD ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2008 INSC 2964 March 2008Dismissed

Rexnord Electronics & Control Ltd. obtained two Export Promotion Capital Goods licences requiring export of specified values within five years and furnished a bond undertaking to pay interest on any duty shortfall. The company failed to meet its export obligations, leading to demand notices for customs duty plus 15% in

SANDOZ PRIVATE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2022 INSC 84 January 2022Disposed off

Sandoz Private Limited, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), sought refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) paid by its Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit for goods supplied to the EOU. The Union of India and other respondents contended that the EOU was ab initio exempt from excise duty under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and

M/S. HINDUSTAN GRANITESversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 3673 April 2007Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the validity of a 2005 circular and notification that amended the Foreign Trade Policy 2004‑2009 to prohibit 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) from making Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) sales of finished marble produced from imported rough marble. The petitioners, several marble‑manufacturing EOU

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search