Export Incentive Schemes Under FTDR Act Can’t Operate Retrospectively: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court held that export incentive schemes framed under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act) cannot be applied or withdrawn with retrospective effect, unless such power is expressly provided under the statute. The bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela partly allowed a writ petition challenging the foreclosure of the Revised Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) Scheme, holding that subordinate legislation under Sections 3 and 5 of the FTDR Act is inherently prospective in nature. The case arose from the withdrawal of the Revised TMA Scheme, which was designed to provide transport and marketing assistance to exporters of specified agricultural products to offset higher logistics costs and promote Indian products in overseas markets. The original TMA Scheme, introduced in 2019, remained in force until March 31, 2021. Thereafter, a revised version was notified on September 9, 2021, stating that it would apply to exports made between April 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022. However, before the end of this period, the Central Government issued a notification on March 25, 2022, foreclosing the scheme with immediate effect, citing the need to revamp and redesign it for improved outcomes. Exporters challenged both the foreclosure notification and a subsequent order rejecting their representation, contending that the withdrawal amounted to an impermissible retrospective denial of incentives. The principal question before the Court was whether the Central Government has the authority under the FTDR Act to introduce or withdraw export incentive schemes retrospectively, thereby affecting benefits for exports already undertaken. The High Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s decision in Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports (2016), which authoritatively held that delegated or subordinate legislation can operate retrospectively only if the parent statute expressly confers such power. The Bench reiterated that neither Section 3 nor Section 5 of the FTDR Act authorises the Government to frame, amend, or rescind foreign trade policy notifications with retrospective effect. While acknowledging that the Government enjoys broad discretion in economic and trade policy matters—and may amend or withdraw schemes in public interest—the Court emphasised that such discretion cannot be exercised retrospectively so as to take away accrued rights without statutory backing. The Court noted that during this interval, no TMA Scheme was in force, as the earlier scheme had expired and the revised scheme was notified only on September 9, 2021. The Bench held that exporters could not claim any vested or accrued right to incentives for this period, as no policy was operational at the relevant time. It further observed that the retrospective applicability stated in the September 9, 2021 notification itself could not be legally sustained under the FTDR Act. The High Court ruled that Notifications issued under the FTDR Act can operate only prospectively. Export incentives under the Revised TMA Scheme are admissible only for exports made on or after September 9, 2021, the date on which the scheme was notified. Exporters who effected exports between September 9, 2021 and March 24, 2022 (prior to the foreclosure notification) are entitled to have their claims considered, subject to fulfilment of eligibility conditions. No incentive can be claimed for exports made prior to September 9, 2021, when no scheme was in existence. The Court directed the authorities to process eligible claims expeditiously upon submission by exporters within the stipulated time. Case Details Case Title: Chillies Exporters Association India Versus DGFT Case No.: W.P.(C) 9463/2024 Date: 10.12.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Manish Mishra Counsel For Respondent: Ripudaman Bhardwaj Click Here To Read Order Read More: Duty-Free Import Of In-Shell Walnuts Permissible When Covered Under Generic DFIA Input Descriptions like “Dietary Fibre” and “Nut and Nut Products”: Gujarat HC

Export Incentive Schemes Under FTDR Act Can’t Operate Retrospectively: Delhi HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

China Plans New Gold Import Rules as Bullion Imports Surge

Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT

Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT

Composite Cargo Handling Contracts Can’t Be Split into GTA Services: CESTAT

More like this

China Plans New Gold Import Rules as Bullion Imports Surge

Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT

Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories