DGFT Committee Decisions Quashed for Lack of Reasons in McCain Foods’ TMA Claim Case: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has set aside decisions of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) committees rejecting delay condonation sought by McCain Foods India Pvt. Ltd. for filing claims under the Transportation and Marketing Assistance (TMA) Scheme, holding that administrative authorities must provide reasoned orders while rejecting claims. The bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the Review Committee to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh, reasoned order. The petitioner, McCain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., approached the High Court challenging two decisions of the competent DGFT committees reflected in Minutes of Meeting dated 7 April 2022 and 2 December 2022. The company argued that the decisions rejecting its request for condonation of delay were arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The dispute arose in relation to claims under Chapter 7A of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020, which provides Transportation and Marketing Assistance (TMA) to exporters of notified goods to specified countries. According to the petitioner, it had exported eligible goods during two quarters: July 2019 to September 2019 and October 2019 to December 2019. The company attempted to file TMA claims amounting to approximately ₹12.44 lakh and ₹20.73 lakh respectively on the DGFT portal. However, while electronic reference numbers were generated for the applications, the payment process could not be completed due to technical glitches on the DGFT portal. As a result, the applications could not be formally submitted before the expiry of the prescribed time limit. The company later completed payment of the application fee, but the portal refused submission because the deadline had already lapsed. McCain Foods subsequently sought condonation of delay in submitting the TMA applications. The Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) considered the request in its meeting on 7 April 2022, but rejected the application stating that the case was “without any merit.” The company then sought a review of the decision and requested a personal hearing under Para 2.59 of the FTP 2015-2020. During the review proceedings, the petitioner argued that the delay occurred due to technical glitches and COVID-19 disruptions. Similarly placed exporters had been granted relief in comparable cases. The earlier rejection was passed without reasons or proper consideration of facts. The Review Committee on 2 December 2022 upheld the earlier rejection, again stating that there was no merit in the firm’s contention. The High Court closely examined the minutes of both meetings and found that the committees had failed to provide reasons explaining why the petitioner’s case lacked merit. The bench observed that the minutes merely recorded the petitioner’s submissions but did not contain any reasoning for rejecting them. The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that administrative decisions must be supported by reasons, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978). The Court emphasized that public authorities cannot justify their decisions later through explanations or affidavits; rather, the validity of an order must be judged based on the reasons contained in the order itself. Another important concern noted by the Court was the petitioner’s assertion that other similarly situated exporters had been granted relaxation in identical circumstances. However, neither the original committee decision nor the review decision addressed this contention or explained the differential treatment, the Court noted. The absence of such reasoning indicated that the authorities had not adequately considered the petitioner’s grievance. Finding the decision-making process deficient, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Review Committee for fresh consideration. The Court directed the committee to re-examine the petitioner’s request for condonation of delay, and pass a well-reasoned order in accordance with law within a reasonable time. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving the issue open for reconsideration by the competent authority. Case Details Case Title: Mccain Foods India Private Limited Versus UOI Case No.: W.P.(C) 4237/2023 Date: 17.02.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Yogendra Aldak Counsel For Respondent: Nidhi Raman Click Here To Read Order Read More: Hardline Approach Toward Small Importers “Counter-Productive”: Bombay High Court Quashes Order After Seized Goods Deteriorate

DGFT Committee Decisions Quashed for Lack of Reasons in McCain Foods’ TMA Claim Case: Delhi High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

Customs Dept. Loses Rs. 5,000-Crore Adani Valuation Dispute as CESTAT Says Issue Already Settled

Promise-to-Marry Allegations Settled in Lok Adalat Cannot Automatically Disqualify Police Recruit: Supreme Court

Can GST Dept. Demand 1% Cash Payment Under Rule 86B Even After Full Tax Has Been Paid Through ITC? CASE LAWS

BSF Jawan Wins Supreme Court Relief as Court Limits Use of ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ in Writ Petitions

More like this

Customs Dept. Loses Rs. 5,000-Crore Adani Valuation Dispute as CESTAT Says Issue Already Settled

Promise-to-Marry Allegations Settled in Lok Adalat Cannot Automatically Disqualify Police Recruit: Supreme Court

Can GST Dept. Demand 1% Cash Payment Under Rule 86B Even After Full Tax Has Been Paid Through ITC? CASE LAWS

About us

Company

Categories