Holding

Supreme Court held that supplies of raw material from DTA to FTZ units are deemed exports and are excluded from IPRS benefits; the scheme was not applicable to the 1986 export, and promissory estoppel could not be invoked.

Summary

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) operated a unit in the Kandla Free Trade Zone (FTZ) and exported two steel bridges to Malaysia in 1986. It procured steel from domestic sources at domestic prices and claimed reimbursement of the price differential under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS). The Government rejected the claim, stating that supplies from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to FTZ units are "deemed exports" and the IPRS expressly excludes such contracts. L&T challenged the rejection, invoking the scheme’s purpose and alleging promissory estoppel based on alleged representations. The Supreme Court held that the raw material supplies were indeed deemed exports, the IPRS was not extended to FTZ units for the period of the export, and L&T failed to establish any representation or provide requisite data to invoke promissory estoppel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The raw material supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area to a unit in a Free Trade Zone constitutes a "deemed export" within the meaning of the Import and Export Policy.
Whether the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) applies to contracts for exports made before its extension to FTZ units in 1991.
Whether the appellant can invoke the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel against the Union of India.
Whether the price at which raw material is procured (domestic vs international) affects eligibility for IPRS benefits.

Subjects

International Price Reimbursement Schemedeemed exportFree Trade Zonepromissory estoppelexport reimbursementImport and Export Policyadministrative lawexport contracts

Judgment

M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JANUARY 18, 2005

[ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] B

Export contracts-International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS)-
Export Import Policy-Para 190(g)-Unit located at Free Trade Zone (FTZ)
obtained export order of engineering goods in 1986-Raw Material of steel
procured from domestic sources at prevailing domestic price-Claim for
c·
reimbursement of the difference in prices of indigenous steel and imported
steel as per the terms of IP RS-Entitlement of-Held: IPRS was extended to
units located in FTZ for the first time in 1991 provided it does mt amount to
'deemed export'-Further, supplies of raw materials from Domestic Tari.ff
Area to units in FTZ is 'deemed exports', thus unit cannot claim benefit under D
IPRS-Furthermore the unit not entitled to invoke promissory estoppel since
'- it failed to show that it acted on a representation made by the Government to
its detriment-Also the unit failed to produce precise data or any data
whatsoever in support of its plea-Promissory estoppel-Administrative Law.

Appellants' units are located in the Free Trade Zone (FTZ). It E
obtained an export order in the year 1986 for construction of two steel
bridges in Malaysia. Government of India approved the appellant's project
and fabrication of steel bridges at its unit subject to the condition that
there should be maximum utilization of indigenous steel as raw material
and any import of steel was to be done only after taking approval of the F
working group. Appellant procured its requirement of steel from domestic
sources at the then prevailing domestic prices determined by Joint Plant
Committee and fabricated steel bridges at its unit and exported them.
Appellant then filed a claim for reimbursement of difference in the price
of indigenous steel and imported steel as per the terms of International
Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) formulated by Government of India G
whereby Indian Exporters of engineering goods were to be supplied steel
required by them for their export contracts at international price w.e.f.
9.2.1981. Government of India rejected the claim. Appellant filed writ
petition. Single Judge of High Court allowed the claim. In appeal, the
533 H
+
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A Division Bench held that the appellant was not entitled to claim the benefit ~
of reimbursement under IPRS as the raw material procured by appellant
from domestic sources amounted to 'deemed export'. Hence the present
appeal.

Appellant company contended that IPRS was introduced by the
B Government of India to enable the Indian Exporters of engineering goods
to compete in the global market; that the appellant's claim for such
reimbursement could not be rejected without valid and proper reasons
by treating the physical export made by the appellant to Malaysia with
the input of raw material of steel procured from domestic sources as a
c "deemed export"; that the concept of "deemed export" was a legal fiction
incorporated in the Import Export Policy with a view to extend the export
benefits to the suppliers of indigenous steel to domestic area; that since
the supplies made from the OT A were not made at international price,
these units will not be entitled to claim import replenishment benefits for
such supplies; and that since the appellant had purchased the steel at a
D higher price from the domestic market at the instance of the Working
Group and on the assurance given that he would be reimbursed the
_,
difference between the domestic price and the international price, the
Government is estopped from denying the benefit of reimbursement of the
differential price under IPRS.

E Respondent-Union of India contended that IPRS was extended to the
units situated in FTZ in year 1991 with the rider that IPRS will not be
admissible for deemed exports, as such the benefits of IPRS cannot be
claimed for export effected in 1985-86; that even on assuming that IPRS
was applicable, it is evident from the terms of the Scheme itself that it
F did not cover contracts for "deemed exports"; and that the appellant is
not entitled to invoke the equitable rule of promissory estoppel.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I. The units located in the Free Trade Zone (FTZ) are
G entitled to certain facilities and incentives but the International Price
Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) was not extended to the units located in
FTZ. Appellant filed a number of representatives seeking to persuade the
respondents - Union of India to include the units located in FTZ for IPRS ')ti
benefits, though the units had the facilities of sourcing the requirements
of raw material on duty free basis. Respondent for the first time in the
H year 1991 extended the IPRS to the units located in FTZ with the rider !r
If
LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. u.o.r. 535
~-
that IPRS will not be admissible for "deemed export", as such the question A
of claiming benefits of IPRS for export effected in the year 1985-86 could
not arise. 1540-H; 541-B-C; 540-F-GI

1.2. As per the terms of the IPRS, it did not cover contracts for
'deemed exports'. It is the admitted fact that the appellant was entitled
to import its raw materials from Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) for its unit B
located in FTZ at international price from DT A or at international price
under Open General Licence (OGL). Every import of raw material from
DTA to FTZ is 'deemed export" as defined in para 190(g) of Import and
Export Policy which provides for categories of supplies which will be
treated as "deemed export" and include supplies made in India to units C
in FTZs, therefore, the supplies of raw materials made by DTA for the
units of the appellant in FTZ would be "deemed export" and the appellant
will not be covered by the IPRS for the benefits under it. [~41-E-Gl

1.3. Whether the import of raw material from DTA is made at
international price or otherwise is of no consequence. The fact that supplies D
of raw material from DTA to units in FTZ can or cannot claim import
replenishment benefits for such supplies does not have impact on the fact
that such supplies from DTA to FTZ are "deemed exports". There is
nothing in the language of IPRS that the import replenishment which
provides that if a supplier in DTA cannot claim import replenishment
benefits, the unit in FTZ would for that reason be entitled to claim IPRS E
benefits. [541-H; 542-A-BI

2. Appellant did not furnish the precise data in support of the pleas
with regard to the applicability of promissory estoppel raised in the Court.
It also failed to furnish any data whatsoever, in support of its claim. It F
has failed to set out as to how the supplies made to them were not "deemed
exports" or that the supplies were not made at the international prices to
them. Even the particulars of the exports, the amount of claim, the price
difference and the price at which materials were supplied to them have
not been furnished. Appellant has failed to show that the Union of India
had ever made any representation to it contrary to what is contained in G
the IPRS that IPRS would be applicable to units located in FTZ. Since
the appellant failed to show that it has acted on a representation made by
tile Union of India to its detriment, it is not entitled to invoke the equitable
rule of promissory estoppel. 1544-D-FJ

H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A Union qf India and Anr. v. Win~ Commander R..R. Hingorani, (19871 ->I
1 SCC 551; S.B. International Ltd. and Ors. v. Asstt. Director General of '
Foreign Trade and Ors., (1996( 2 SCC 439 and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills
Co. ltd. v. State of UP., (1979! 2 SCC 409, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3025 of2003.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.2001 of the Madras High
Court in Crl. W.A. No. 943 of 1993.

A.K. Ganguli and V. Krishna Murthy for the Appellant.

C A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General and Harish Chander, Ms.
Sandhya Goswami, V.K. Verma, S.A. Khan and Shreekant N. Terdal for the
Respondent No. 1-2.

Atlaf Ahmad, Ms. Sangeeta Manda! and Ms. Jayasree Singh for M/s.
Fox Manda! & Co. for the Respondent No. 3.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHAN, J. This appeal by grant of leave is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the Madras High Court in Writ
Appeal No. 943 of 1993 whereby the Division Bench has set aside the order
E passed by the Single Judge of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appdlant.

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. the appellant herein, has its workshop amongst
other places within the Kandla Free Trade Zone (hereinafter referred to as
'the KFTZ') in the State of Gujarat. In the year 1986 it obtained an export
F order for Rs. 24 crores (48 million Malaysian Dollars) from the Malaysian
Government for the construction of two steel bridges in Malaysia. The Working
Group, a High Level Official Body of the Indian Government gave its approval
to the appellant's project and for fabrication required for the work to be done
in the appellant's workshop at KFTZ on the condition that there should be
G maximum utilization of indigenous steel as raw material and that any import
of steel was to be done only after taking prior approval of the Working
Group.

The units which are located in the Free Trade Zone like that of the
appellant in KFTZ is entitled, inter alia, to the following facilities and
H incentives:-
--+
LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. U.0.l. [BHAN. J.] 537
(i) An assured supply of power and good quality of water, is available A
in these zones at reasonable rates. These zones are also well
served by banks, clearing and forwarding agencies, postal and
telecommunication facilities and customs clearance facilities.
(ii) Simplified procedures coupled with single point clearance.
(iii) Non-requirement of import licence as all imports into the zones B
have been placed under the Open General Licence (OGL). The
customs duty is not leviable.
(iv) Exemption from central excise duties and other levies on products
manufactured within the zones.
(v) Treating raw materials, components etc. supplied to these zones
c
from rest of the country as exports and their eligibility for all
export benefits. It means easy availability of high quality inputs
at lower cost.
(vi) The zones have all other infrastructural facilities like warehousing, D
postal, telecommunications and canteen facilities.
(vii) Complete tax holiday for a specified numbers of years is also
available.
(viii) Foreign equity participation is permitted upto 100%.
(ix) Capital invested by foreign investors/entrepreneurs including E
profits ploughed back in the project in the zone and dividends
can be freely repatriated after deduction of applicable taxes.
(x) The EPZ units are permitted to sell to the extent of 25% of their
production in addition to 5% of the rejects in Domestic Market.
F
(xi) Concessional financing facilities are available.

The Government of India had introduced a special scheme known as
International Price Reimbursement Scheme (for short 'IPRS') to ensure that
the supplies of steel required by the engineering exporters for their export
contracts are made available to them at international price w.e.f. 9.2.198 l G
and to reimburse them the difference in the price of indigenous steel and the
imported steel. The Scheme provided for an elaborate procedure and also
conditions under which the benefits could be claimed. Relevant clauses which
are required to be fulfilled for claiming the benefits under the Scheme are :-

"I. The scheme will not cover "deemed exports" including supplies H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A of IDA/IBRD assisted/financed projects."
~
2. Contracts eligible for reimbursement would have to be got
registered with the concerned regional office of th~ EEPC within
40 days from the date of the contract.
3. Applications will have to be made on a monthly basis covering
B all shipments made during the month to the concerned regional
office of the EEPC.
4. After scrutiny of the claims, EEPC will record all the statements
of exports furnished by the exporter in an Entitlement Certificate.

c 5. The licensing authority, after checking the claims, will issue
payments to the EEPC and the EEPC wi II issue the cheque for
an amount as authorised by the licensing authority."

The appellant procured its requirement of steel from domestic sources
SAIL and TISCO at the then prevailing domestic prices determined by the
D Joint Plant Committee (for short 'JPC') in preference to their right to import
steel at a much competitive international price. Appellant after fabricating the
two steel bridges at its unit in Kandla, exported the same to Malaysia. The
appellant filed its claim with the Government of India for reimbursement of
price difference in accordance with the Price Reimbursement Scheme. The
Government rejected the appellant's claim by its order dated 12.2.1992.
E Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 5499-5500 of 1992 impugning the said
order of rejection. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by his
judgment and order dated 8.6.1993. It was held that the appellant would be
entitled to the reimbursement of the difference in prices of indigenous steel
and the imported steel. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the Government
p to reimburse the appellant with the difference in the price of indigenous steel
and the imported steel.

The Government filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High
Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 943 and 944 of 1993. The appellate court reversed
the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the appellant was not
G eligible to claim the benefit of reimbursement under the IPRS as the raw
material procured by the appellant from domestic sources amounted to
"deemed export".

It is a common case of the parties that "deemed exports" have not been
defined under the JPRS. The same have been defined in Chapter XVI of
H Import and Export Policy (Vol. I). Paragraph 190 of the Policy provides,
LARSEN &TOUBRO LTD. v. U.0.1. [BHAN. J.] 539
inter a/ia, that the following categories of supplies will be treated as "deemed A
exports" for the purpose of benefits under the Import Replenishment Scheme:-
"(a) Supplies made in India of indigenous items against "Duty Free Licences"
issued under the Duty Exemption Scheme and the Import Export Pass Book
Scheme;

(b) xx xx xx B
(c) xx xx xx

(d) xx xx xx
(e) xx xx xx
(t) xx xx xx
c
(g) Supplies made in India to units in free trade zones/export
processing zones or I00% export oriented units according to the
policy laid down under the respective schemes;
(h) xx xx xx D
(i) xx xx xx
(j) xx xx xx
(k) xx xx xx
(I) E

xx

xx
xx F
The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has taken the view that
since the supplies made in India to the units located in the free trade zones/
export processing zones or I00% export oriented units are deemed to be
exports, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of reimbursement as provided
under the IPRS because the IPRS in terms states that it will not cover contracts G
for "deemed exports" .

..._... Shri A.K. Ganguly, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
has strenuously contended that IPRS was introduced by the Government of
India to enable the Indian Exporters of engineering goods to obtain
reimbursement of the difference between the domestic price and the H
~
I

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S. C.R.

A input of raw material of steel procured from domestic sources as a "deemed
export". According to him, the concept of "deemed export" was nothing but
a legal fiction incorporated by the Government of India in the Import Export
Policy with a vie\\' to extend the export benefits which are otherwise available
only for physical exports so that the consumption of indigenous raw material
in the exports is encouraged and foreign exchange is conserved. It was
B submitted by him that the Division Bench has erred in holding that the
transaction of procurement of sieel by the appellant from domestic supplies
SAIL and TISCO was a "deemed export" so as to deprive the appellant of
the benefit of IPRS. According to him, "deemed export" is only a legal
fiction used in the Import Export Policy in contradistinction to physical export
C so that certain consignments made from one domestic area to another domestic
area within the territory of India are deemed to be exports for the purpose of
conferring certain benefits which are otherwise available only for physical
exports so that suppliers of indigenous steel to domestic area become eligible
to claim the said export benefits and the said concept has no relevance to the
physical export made by the appellant by procuring indigenous steel at
D domestic price from domestic supplier, both being mutually exclusive.

The Government of India had formulated the IPRS in order to ensure
that the supply of steel required by the engineering exporters for their export
contracts is made available to them at international prices w.e.f. 9-2-1981 so
E as to enable them to compete in the global market and, therefore, the High
Court should have considered the applicability of the said scheme to the
export made by the appellant by procuring the indigenous steel as raw material.

As against this, counsel for the respondent contended that the IPRS was
not applicable to the appellant in the year 1985 when the goods were exported.
F It was extended to the units situated in Free Trade Zones on 20.9.1991 and
that too with the rider that IPRS will not be admissible for deemed exports.
Under the circumstances, the question of claiming benefits of IPRS for export
effected in I 985-1986 did not arise on facts. Even on assuming that the IPRS
was applicable, it is evident from the terms of the Scheme itself that it did
not cover contracts for "deemed exports".
G
After due deliberations on the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The
units located in the Free Trade Zone are entitled to certain facilities and
incentives such as assured supply of power and good quality of water at
H reasonable rates. Simplified procedures coupled with single point clearance
LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. U.0.1. [BHAN. J.] 541

have been provided for them. All imports made by them into the zone were A
placed under the Open General Licence (OGL). Custom duty was not leviable
on the imported materials. They were given exemption from central excise
and other levies on the p:oducts manufactured by them. Complete tax holiday
for specified number of years was made available to them. Like this, many
other benefits had been extended to them as is evident from the perusal of B
the terms of the Scheme which have been reproduced in _the earlier part of
the judgment But the IPR scheme was not extended to the units located in
free trade zone. The appellant, as a matter of fact, thrc;ugh a number of
representatives had been seeking to persuade the respondents to include the
units located in Free Trade Zone for IPRS benefits, though the units had the
facilities of sourcing the requirements of raw material on duty free basis. C
EEPC placed its argument on behalf of the appellant before the Union of
India - the respondent herein, who by their letter dated 20.9.1991 extended
the IPRS to the units located in Free Trade Zone with the rider that IPRS will
not be admissible for "deemed export". As benefits under IPR Scheme were
extended for the first time in the year 1991 the question of claiming benefits
of IPRS for export effected in the year 1985-86 under the circumstances D
could not arise.

Even otherwise, it is evident as per the terms of the IPRS itself that it
did not cover contracts for "deemed exports". The admitted fact is that the
appellant was entitled to import its raw materials from Domestic Tariff Area E
(DTA) for its unit located in Free Trade Zone at international price from
DTA or at international price under Open General Licence (OGL). Every
impo11 of raw material from DTA to FTZ is "deemed export" as defined in
para l 90(g) of Import and Export Policy which provides for categories of
supplies which will be treated as "deemed export" and include supplies made
in India to units in FTZs. Quite plainly, therefore, the supplies ofraw materials F
+ made by DTA for the units of the appellant in FTZ would be "deemed
export" in terms of the definition at para I 90(g) of Import and Export Policy
and thus on terms of IPRS itself, the appellant will not be covered by the
IPRS for the benefits under it.

It was submitted by the counsel for the appellants that since the supplies G
made from the DTA were not made at the international price, these units will
not be entitled to claim import replenishment benefits for such supplies.
Whether the import of raw material from DTA is made at international price
or otherwise is of no consequence. The fact that supplies of raw material
from DTA to units in FTZ can or cannot claim import replenishment benefits H
t
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A for such supplies does not impact on the fact that such supplies from OTA
to FTZ are "deemed exports". There is nothing in the language of IPRS or
the scheme that the import replenishment which provides that if a supplier in
OTA cannot claim import replenishment benefits, the unit in FTZ would for
that reason be entitled to claim !PRS benefits.

B In the High Court the appellant had invoked the equitable rule of
promissory estoppel but in the Special Leave Petition this ground has not
been taken. However, during the course of arguments before us the learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant made submissions on the equitable
rule of promissory estoppel as well. It is submitted by him that the IPRS in
C express terms confers upon the Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC)
the responsibility to administer the scheme by not only sponsoring the demand
of steel for export production but by undertaking detailed scrutiny of the
applications for reimbursement of differential price sought by the exporters
and finally by making payment to the exporters. It was contended that in
respect of another export contract executed by the appellant in June, 1985 for
D export of Steel Sliding Gates to Nepal, EEPC not only categorically given out
that the appellant "will be eligible for reimbursement of price difference on
consumption ofsteel/pig iron in the products exported provided all documents
as per the International Price Reimbursement Scheme are furnished to councif'
but had, in fact, been reimbursed with the full amount of the difference
E between the domestic price and the international price of the indigenous
material by the EEPC. The appellant therefore bona fide believed that it was
entitled to reimbursement of the differential price under the IPRS. That the
Working Group had approved the international pricing of export contract on
the basis of international prices of the raw material. That it is at the instance
of the Working Group that the appellant instead of importing the steel at
F international price without paying custom duty which it was entitled to, being
located in Free Trade Zone, agreed to procure steel from SAIL and TISCO
at a much higher price determined by JPC only on the assurance that it will
be entitled to the reimbursement of the differential price under the IPRS.
Since the appellant had purchased the steel/pig iron at a higher price from the
G domestic market at the instance of the Working Group and on the assurance
given that he would be reimbursed of the difference between the domestic
price and the international price, the Government is estopped from denying
the benefit of reimbursement of the differential price under the IPRS.

As against this, counsel for the respondent submitted that no
H representation had ever been made on behalf of the Union of India or its
--r
I

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. U.0.1. [BHAN . .I.] 543

officers that benefits of IPRS would be extended to the appellant. That A
applicability of Promissory Estoppel was not a pure question of law. The
appellant was required to provide precise factual data in support of his plea.
It was for him to show as to how supplies made to it were not "deemed
exports". The appellant should have placed the factual data to show that the
supplies had not been made to it at the international price which it failed to
do. Particulars of the export, the amount of claim, the price difference and B
... the price at which materials were supplied to it have r. Jt u~en furnished. In
the absence of these facts, the appellant is not entitled to invoke the equitable
rule of promissory estoppel.

~· Strictly speaking since the appellant has not raised this point in the
special leave petition, we are not called upon to adjudicate on this point, but
c
as we permitted him to make submission on the equitable rule of promissory
estoppel we might as well decide this point. In Union of India and Anr. v.
Wing Commander R.R. Hingorani, [1987] 1 SCC 551, this Court has held
that before an estoppel can arise, there must be first a representation of an
existing fact distinct from a mere promise made by one party to other; secondly, D
that the other party believing it must have been induced to act on the faith
of it; and thirdly, that he must have so acted to his detriment. In the present
case, no representation had ever been made by the Union of India that IPRS
would be applicable to the units located in FTZ. On the contrary, the appellant
had filed a number of representations seeking to persuade the Union cf India
to include the units located in FTZ for IPRS benefits. The Union of India by
E
its letter dated 20.9.1991, for the first time_, extended the lPRS to the units
located in FTZ but at the same time reaffirmed that IPRS will not be admissible
for "deemed exports". This reiteration is mere restatement of what is already
provided in IPRS and any modification thereof sought by the appellant was
not acceptable to the Union of India. Under the circumstances, the question F
of promissory estoppel would not arise on the facts itself inasmuch as no
representation contrary to IPRS had ever been made which could mislead the
appellant into altering his position to his detriment.

In S.B. International ltd. and Ors. v Asstt. Director General of Foreign
Trade and Ors., [1996] 2 SCC 439, this Court has taken the view that G
applicability of promissory estoppel is not a pure question of law. Person
invoking the equitable rule of promissory estoppel is required to provide
'Jr precise data in support of his plea and specify the various ingredients of the
rule enunciated in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ltd. v. State of UP.,
[1979] 2 sec 409, wherein it was observed: H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A "So far as the argument of promissory estoppel is concerned, it is
equally unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Having regard to the nature of the advance licence-import and export
later - there is no room for this argument. The discretion inhering in
rhe authority to take into consideration the exports effected after the
date of filing of the application for advance licence does not detract
B from its essential character, as explained hereinabove. We may also
mention that no precise data has been furnished by the appellant in
support of the said plea. In the absence of such data, the plea of
promissory estoppel is misconceived. The appellant has to establish
the various ingredients of this rule, as enumerated by this Court in
c Moti/al Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ltd. v. State of U.P., (1979] 2
sec 409 and other subsequent decisions. It is not a pure question of
law."

In the present case, the appellant has failed to furnish the precise data in
support of the pleas raised in the Court. What to talk of precise data, in
D support of its claim, the appellant has failed to furnish any data whatsoever.
It has failed to set out as to how the supplies made to them were not "deemed
exports" or that the supplies were not made at the international prices to
them. The precise data required for their entitlement has not been given in
their affidavits. Even the particulars of the exports, the amount of claim, the
E price difference and the price at which materials were supplied to them have
not been furnished. The appellant has failed to show that any representation
had ever been made to it by the Union of India contrary to what is contained
in the IPRS. Since the appellant failed to show that it has acted on a
representation made by the Union of India to its detriment, the appellant is
not entitled to invoke the equitable rule of promissory estoppel.
F
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal
and dismiss the same with no order as to the costs. +

N.J. Appeal dismissed.