Rika Global Impex Limited vs. Union Of India And Ors

2026:BHC-AS:18552-DB
Digitally
signed by
VIDYA
SURESH
AMIN
Date:
2026.04.20
19:40:17
+0530
WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
VIDYA
SURESH
AMIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2310 OF 2024
Rika Global Impex Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2493 OF 2026
Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd And Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India Thru Secretary And Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3678 OF 2024
K.S. Commodities Private Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8744 OF 2024
M/s. Uma Exports Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Through The Joint Secretary & Ors ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Abhishek Rastogi with Ms. Pooja M. Rastogi with Meenal Songire with Ms.
Aarya More & Mr. Chayank Bohra, for Petitioner in WP/2310/2024 &
WP/3678/2024.
Mr. Janay Jain with Mr. Sansha Garud with Ms. Dhwani Parekh i/b. Jayker and
Partners, for the Petitioner in WP/8744/2024.
Mr. Darius Shroff, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul P. Jain i/b. Alpha Chambers,
for the Petitioner in WP/2493/2026.
Ms. Jaymal Ostwal, for Respondent No.4 in WP/2310/2024.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra with Mr. Ashutosh Mishra with Mr. Rupesh Dubey with
Mr. Vikas Salgia, for Respondent No.2 in WP/2310/2024 & WP 8744/2024.
Page 1 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha with Mr. Vikas Salgia with Mr. Dhanesh Shah, for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP/2493/2026, WP 3678/2024.

Mr. Yogendra Mishra with Ms. Jaimala Ostwal with Ms. Ruju Thakkar with Ms.
Sangeeta Yadav, for Customs Department/Respondent No.3 in WP 2310/2024,
WP 2493/2026 and WP 8744/2024, for Respondent Nos.4,5,7 in WP
3678/2024.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 25 MARCH 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 20 APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.).
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the
parties, heard finally.
2. As this batch of petitions raise common issues of law and involve similar
facts, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The petitioners seeks relief that the petitioners are entitled to the export
Rebate under the Remission of Duties and Taxes on Export Products Scheme
(RoDTEP) for exports of white refined sugar for different periods as set out in
memos of these petitions.
4. The petitioners in these petitions are inter alia engaged in the export of
“white sugar ( crystal)” stated to be bearing ITC(HS) Code 17011490. The
petitioners have contended that RoDTEP was promulgated vide Notification
dated 17 August 2021 issued by the Government of India, retrospectively
amending paragraph 4.01 of Chapter 4 of Foreign Trade Policy by inserting sub-
para (e) and added paragraph 4.54 to 4.59 in Chapter 4 to enable remission of
Page 2 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
duties and taxes on exported products. The petitioners were claiming/utilizing

refund under RoDTEP on export of sugar bearing the said tariff item.
5. On 23 September 2021, Notification No.75/2021- Customs (N.T.) was
issued inter alia prescribing guidelines qua the location, wherein duty credit
under RoDTEP will be deposited / maintained to be used by eligible exporter.
Another Notification No.76/2021-Customs (N.T.) was issued inter alia in regard
to manner of issuance, utilization and transfer of such duty being regulated.
6. Thereafter, Notification No.10/2015-20 dated 24 May 2022 was issued
wherein export policy of sugar was revised from “free” to “restricted”. The said
notification, however, permitted export of restricted sugar under specific
permission from Directorate of Sugar, Department of Food and Public
Distribution (DFPD). In such context, comprehensive guidelines are notified by
the Directorate of Sugar, for obtaining specific permission inter alia stating that
free export of sugar for shipping bills filed on and/or before 31 May 2022 and for
which export vessel has been allocated rotation number.
7. By a Notification No.40/2015-20 dated 28 May 2022 the revised export
policy of sugar was extended till 31 October 2023. Also on 5 November 2022
the Directorate of Sugar prescribed permissible quantum for export sugar which
would not require specific permission save or otherwise provided in the said
letter.
8. We do not intend to advert to the facts of the individual cases of the
petitioners. Suffice it to observe that the common grievance of the petitioners is
Page 3 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
that they have been arbitrarily deprived of the benefits of the duty credit under

RoDTEP on the exports made, in that context of what has been prescribed in
Paragraph 4.55(iv) (Chapter 4 of the Foreign Trade Policy), whereunder
ineligible supply of item categorized under the Scheme are provided inter alia
being item namely “ products which are restricted for export ” under Schedule 2 of
the Export Policy in ITC(HS) as contained in Notification No.19/2015-2020
dated 17 August 2021 being the Scheme Guidelines for RoDTEP.
9. It is the petitioners’ case that indisputedly the petitioners were exporting
White Crystal Sugar bearing ITC(HS) Code 17011490, during the relevant
period. They were also availing and utilizing duty credit under RoDTEP during
the relevant period subject to fulfillment of all conditions including realization of
sale proceeds for export made. By Notification No.76/2021-Customs (NT)
dated 23 September 2021 issued in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of
Section 51B of the Customs Act, the Central Government has notified the
manner in which the duty credit for goods exported under RoDTEP Scheme be
availed, subject to the conditions and restrictions as specified thereunder, in
accordance with paragraph 4.01(e) of the Foreign Trade Policy. It was provided
that the duty credit shall be subject to the conditions inter alia that the export
categories or sectors listed in Table 1 annexed to the said notification, shall not be
eligible for duty credit under the Scheme. In the said Schedule Item No.1
provided for the goods which are restricted or prohibited for export under
Schedule 2 of Export Policy in ITC-HS. Also by subsequent Notification
No.10/2015-20 dated 24 May 2022 amendment was made in the export policy
Page 4 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
for sugar, in order to maintain domestic availability and price stability of sugar,

thereby restricting the export of sugar in terms of the said notification. The said
notification reads thus:
“Government of India
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce
Directorate General of Foreign Trade
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi
Notification No. 10/2015-20
Dated: 24 May, 2022
Subject:-Amendment in Export Policy of sugar.
S.0 (B) In order to maintain domestic availability and price stability of sugar,
Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 read with
Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.
22 of 1992), as amended, read with Para 1.02 and 2.01 of the Foreign Trade
Policy, 2015-20, hereby amends export policy of sugar under S.No.93 of
Chapter 17 of ITC (HS), Schedule-II as under:

2. This restriction is not applicable to Sugar being exported to EU and USA
under CXI. and TRQ quota as per prescribed procedure in the respective
Public Notices.
Page 5 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
3. Effect of this Notification:

Export of Sugar (Raw, Refined and White sugar) is placed under 'Restricted"
category from 1st June, 2022 onwards (except fixed quantity of sugar being
exported under CXL and TRQ quota to EU and USA). Export after
01.06.2022 will be allowed on production of specific permission (as per the
procedure to be notified separately by DFPD) from Directorate of Sugar,
Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD), Ministry of
Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution. 2022.
(Santosh Kumar Sarangi)
Director General of Foreign Trade
Ex-Officio Additional Secretary, Govt. of India
E-mail: deh@nic.in
10. The Government of India issued a Combined Export Release Order for
Exporters dated 5 June 2022 thereby granting permission to exporters to export a
total quantity of 10LMT of sugar within 90 days from the date of the said order
as per the application of the exporter, details of which are set out in Annexure I
(application wise) and Annexure II (exporter wise), in relation to the sugar season
2021-22. All the petitioners figured in the said list as notified, with the
appropriate quantity of export being permitted to them. It is the petitioners’ case
that accordingly the export application was discharged by the petitioners.
11. However, what has transpired thereafter is that having undertaken the
export, benefit of RoDTEP was denied to the petitioners on the ground that it
was a restricted export in view of the Notification No. 10/2015-2020 dated 24
May 2022.
12. There is some background litigation in regard to the grievance of the
petitioners being asserted in these petitions. One of the petitioners in the present
batch of petitions namely Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. being aggrieved by denial of
Page 6 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
the benefits under RoDTEP, had approached the High Court of Gujarat in the

proceedings of Special Civil Application No.2186 of 2023. In regard to the said
proceedings, the situation was to the effect that as Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. has
taken benefit of RoDTEP, coercive action of recovery was initiated against Shree
Renuka Sugars Ltd. for export benefits allowed from 1 June 2022 to November
2022 under the RoDTEP Scheme. The Division Bench of the High Court of
Gujarat considering the rival contentions in the context of the action of the
department denying the RoDTEP benefit, by way of recovery, against Shree
Renuka Sugars Ltd., allowed the said proceedings in terms of the following
operative order:
“5. As the controversy unfolds as above, the court is of the view that the
following directions would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly it is provided
that,
(i) The petitioner shall be entitled to claim the RoCITEP Scheme benefit in
respect of the exports of white refined sugar at the rate permissible. Even if
such benefit is not claimed or mentioned in the shipping bills, the petitioner is
permitted to make necessary application seeking such benefit in respect of the
consignments concerned.
(ii) The passage of time in making such applications which would occur as
amount would not be mentioned in the shipping bills, would not render the
claim of the petitioner time barred.
(iii) The non-mentioning of the claim of the benefit in the shipping bill by the
petitioner shall also not be treated as waiver on part of the petitioner by the
authorities.
(iv) The authority shall process the claim of the petitioner for RODTEP
Scheme benefit Irrespective of the fact that the same was not mentioned or
lodged along with the shipping bill concerned.
(v) If any adjudicatory proceedings are require to be undertaken by the
authorities in respect of the claim of the petitioner for the benefit, the
respondent Nos.3- The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and respondent
No.4-The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, (OBK), Kandla, shall while
deciding the claim, extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall
act in accordance with Section 28 of the Customs Act.”
13. Similar view was taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of
1
Gujarat in the case M/s.Satyendra Packaging Ltd. vs. Union of India . The
1 2023-VIL-851-GUJ-CU, dt. 29/11/2023
Page 7 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
relevant observations as made by the Division Bench which followed the decision

in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (supra) read thus:
“9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having
considered the facts of the case which are identical to the case of M/s. Shree Renuka
Sugars Ltd. (supra), we are of the opinion that the respondents could not have
denied the benefit of rebate under the RoDTEP scheme to the petitioners, more
particularly, when the petitioners have exported product after fulfilling the
conditions as prescribed by the Directorate of Sugar as well as the Notifications
issued by the Central Government from time to time. The Coordinate Bench of this
Court has also passed the order permitting rebate to the petitioner of the said case.
10. In the facts of the case, vide Notification dated 24th May 2022, the category of
sugar (raw sugar, white sugar and refined sugar) is changed from free to restricted
category with policy conditions, which are as under:
"(i) With effect from 1 June, 2022 upto 31" October 2022 oruntil further
orders, whichever is earlier, export of sugar is allowed only with specific
permission from Directorate of Sugar, Department of Food and Public
Distribution (DFPD), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public
Distribution.
(ii) Detailed procedure for issue of necessary permissions for export of
sugar will be notified separately by Department of Food and Public
Distribution (DFPD)."
11. As per the Government circular dated 5th November 2022, the schedule
quantity of sugar for export in Sugar Season for 2022-23 was also issued with
various conditions, whereby the quantity for export of sugar to various mills was
also quantified.
12. By Notification dated 21 October 2022, the Government has also issued export
release order for sugar from Somalia.
13. In view of the above Notifications issued by the Government from time to time
permitting export of sugar, the basic objective of the RODTEP scheme is to grant
benefit of rebate to the exporter as an incentive or exporting product.
14. In view of the facts and foregoing reasons, both the petitions are allowed.
Prayers 32(a) and 36(a) in respective petitions are granted. The respondents are
directed to grant benefit of rebate under the RODTEP scheme to the petitioners
who have exported sugar with specific permission under the specific condition
prescribed by the Directorate of Sugar as per Notification No.19/2015-20 dated
17th August 2021 and Clause 3 of paragraph 2 of the Notification No.76/2021-
Customs (N.T.) dated 23rd September 2021. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. No order as to costs.”
14. At this juncture it is required to be noted that the common orders passed
in M/s.Satyendra Packaging Ltd. (supra) were assailed by the Department before
Page 8 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
the Supreme Court in the proceedings of Special Leave Petition (civil) Diary

No.16262 of 2024, which was dismissed by an order dated 26 April 2024. In
such context, the Deputy Commissioner (Export), Customs House, Mundra,
with the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Customs addressed a
Communication dated 28 August 2024 to the Deputy Director, Reward Scheme
(RoDTEP), Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, inter alia
regarding grant of benefit of RoDTEP Scheme to M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd.
and M/s. HRMM Agro Overseas Pvt. Ltd. inter alia recording dismissal of SLP as
also the decision to file a review petition before the Supreme Court being not
approved on an opinion as sought. The said letter is placed on record in these
petitions. The relevant extract of which is required to be noted, which reads
thus:-
“F. No.CUS/ASS/MISC/971/2024-EA Dated: 28.08.2024
To, The Deputy Director,
Reward Scheme (RODTEP)
Directorate General of Foreign Trade,
Vanijya Bhawan, 'A' Wing, 16 Akbar Road,
New Delhi-110011.
Sir.
Sub: Grant of benefit of RoDTEP Scheme -M/ Reg.
Kindly refer to SCA No.2186 of 2023 was filed by M/s Shree Renuka
Sugars before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of RODTEP on
Export of Sugar wherein one of the respondents is DGFT.
2. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 13.04.2023 in SCA No.2186
of 2023 filed by M/s Shree Renuka Sugars is reproduced as under:
5. As the controversy unfolds as above, the court is of the view that the
following directions would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly it is
provided that,
(i) The petitioner shall be entitled to claim the RoDTEP Scheme benefit in
respect of the exports of white refined sugar at the rate permissible. Even if
such benefit is not claimed or mentioned in the shipping bills, the petitioner
Page 9 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
is permitted to make necessary application seeking such benefit in respect of
the consignments concerned.

(ii) The passage of time in making such applications which would occur as
amount would not be mentioned in the shipping bills, would not render the
claim of the petitioner time barred.
(iii) The non-mentioning of the claim of the benefit in the shipping bill by
the petitioner shall also not be treated as waiver on part of the petitioner by
the authorities.
(iv) The authority shall process the claim of the petitioner for RODTEP
Scheme benefit irrespective of the fact that the same was not mentioned or
lodged along with the shipping bill concerned.
(v) If any adjudicatory proceedings are require to be undertaken by the
authorities in respect of the claim of the petitioner for the benefit, the
respondent Nos.3- The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and respondent
No.4- The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, (DBK), Kandla, shall while
deciding the claim, extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall
act in accordance with Section 28 of the Customs Act.
6. Except giving the above directions, the court has not gone into any other
aspect in the subject matter including the extent of exports which may be
allowed by customs authorities under the export policy.
3. In a similar matter, in Special Civil Application No.3085 of 2023 filed by
M/s HRMM Agro Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Special Civil Application No.3084
of 2023 filed by M/s Satyendra Packaging Ltd. before the Hon'ble High Court
of Gujarat., the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat vide Order dated 29.11.2023
passed the following order:
"The respondents are directed to grant benefit of rebate under the
RODTEP scheme to the petitioners who have exported sugar with specific
permission under the specific condition prescribed by the Directorate of
Sugar as per Notification No.10/2015-20 dated 17th August 2021 and
Clause 3 of paragraph 2 of the Notification No.76/2021-Customs (N.T.)
dated 23rd September 2021. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent".
4. The Hon'ble High Court in the above order which is similar to the present
case, has granted the benefit of the RODTEP to the petitioners who have
exported sugar with specific permission under the specific condition prescribed
by the Directorate of Sugar.
5. Against the above High Court order dated 29.11.2023, the department filed
Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Diary No.16262/2024 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India which was dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2024 as
detailed under:
We are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is
hence dismissed.
6. The department on direction of DGFT has preferred to file Review
Petition in respect of the above Hon’ble Supreme Court of India order dated
09.07.2024. However, Under Secretary (Legal) vide letter dated 30.07.2024
Page 10 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
informed that after the approval from Board, the proposal approval from Board,
the proposal was referred to the Department of Legal Affairs for seeking
opinion of Ld. Law Officer, regarding feasibility of filing Review Petition. In
this matter, Shri N. Venkataraman, ld. ASG, has opined as under:

"Review Petition is not recommended. The Supreme Court is less likely to
interfere as ultimately it was a Central Government Litigation. The grounds
pointed out only shows that the appeal could have been drafted better but
does not indicate any error apparent on the face of the record requiring the
SC to invoke its review jurisdiction."
7. In view of the above, the matter has attained the finality. therefore, the
applicant; M/s Shree Renuka Sugars is eligible for RODTEP benefit in light of
the Hon'ble High Court Order as discussed in paras supra.
8. This office has no facility in ICES EDI System to convert the Scheme
change for RoDTEP Scheme "No" to "Yes" in the Shipping Bills. Therefore, it
is requested to take necessary action at your end for granting the benefit of
RoDTEP Scheme in compliance of the above Hon'ble High Court order.
This is issued with the approval of the Hon'ble Pr. Commissioner of
Customs, Customs House, Mundra.”
15. Another letter was addressed by the Office of the Commissioner of
Customs, Custom House, Kandla to the Deputy Director, Reward Scheme
(RoDTEP), Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, dated 3 March 2025
recording that the matter had attained finality and benefit of RoDTEP would be
required to be granted to M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. The said letter was
issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House,
Kandla.
16. Thus, referring to the aforesaid letters, the contention as urged on behalf
of the petitioners is that the Revenue has accepted the orders passed by the High
Court of Gujarat in M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars (supra), hence, insofar as the
petitioners are concerned, the said benefit cannot be deprived. Our attention is
also drawn to a recent communication dated 20 January 2025 addressed to all
Sugar Mills on the subject ‘Sugar mill-wise Export Quantity of sugar for export in
Page 11 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
Sugar Season 2024-25-reg’, in regard to decision of the Government of India to

allocate export quota of 10 LMT of sugar for season 2024-25, to contend that the
RoDTEP is being validly implemented even for the subsequent period.
17. In the aforesaid circumstances, Mr. Darius Shroff, learned Senior Counsel,
Mr. Abhishek Rastogi and Mr. Janay Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, would submit that it is arbitrary for the respondents to deny the
benefit to the petitioners of RoDTEP, inasmuch as, once the policy has been in
vogue and the same was accepted and actions are taken thereunder by the
petitioners, merely in view of the notification No.10/2015-2020 dated 24 May
2022 imposing restriction, it cannot be considered that the export of sugar as
undertaken by the petitioners can be categorized as prohibited exports, and not
eligible for RoDTEP benefits, inasmuch as all such exports have been permitted
on specific permission that has been granted by the Directorate of Sugar,
Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD) and in the manner as
notified, in regard to the quota of export allocated to each of these petitioners.
18. It is thus submitted that a legitimate benefit which was otherwise entitled
to the petitioners was denied on a patent arbitrary consideration and on a
misreading of the Notification dated 24 May 2022. It is submitted that there is
no justification whatsoever for such benefits to be denied to the petitioners
and/or any actions for recovery being taken against some of the petitioners on the
ground that the benefit of RoDTEP was arbitrarily availed on behalf of the
petitioners. It is therefore, submitted that, in any event, the decisions of the High
Court of Gujarat in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (supra) and M/s.Satyendra Packaging
Page 12 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
Ltd. (supra), have attained finality in view of the Special Leave Petition being

dismissed by the Supreme Court, as also the department accepting, that such
orders had attained finality and benefit being already granted to Shree Renuka
Sugars Ltd. as also M/s. Satyendra Packaging Ltd. It is, however, stated that
although benefits were granted, the interest was not granted and for which
independent proceedings were filed before the High Court of Gujarat and the
same are pending in such cases.
19. On the other hand Ms. Bharucha, learned counsel for Revenue has
opposed this petition. She has justified the impugned action, primarily relying on
the Notification No.76/2021 dated 23 September 2021, by which in terms of
paragraph 2(3) thereof, ‘ sugar ’ was placed in the category of ineligible for duty
credit in terms of Item (1) “Goods which are restricted or prohibited for export
under Schedule-2 of Export Policy in ITC-HS.
20. However, Ms. Bharucha would not be in a position to dispute that by
subsequent Notification No.10/2015-2020 dated 24 May 2022, with effect from
1 June 2022 till 31 October 2023, or until further orders, the export of sugar was
allowed with a specific permission from Directorate of sugar, Department of Food
and Public Distribution (DFPD). The said notification also specifies the effect of
the said notification in terms of paragraph 3 which we have extracted
hereinabove.
21. The contentions as urged in the reply affidavit are to the effect that
blanketly sugar had become a restricted item of export and an item of total
Page 13 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
restriction, which is not the correct position as contended on behalf of the

petitioners, considering the policy conditions as set out in the Notification dated
24 May 2022. Ms. Bharucha is also not in a position to dispute that in identical
circumstances the High Court of Gujarat has allowed the proceedings filed by
Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. and M/s.Satyendra Packaging Ltd. and that such
orders have attained finality in view of the SLP being dismissed by the Supreme
Court.
22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, we find ourselves in agreement with the petitioners that it would be
arbitrary for the respondents to deny the benefits of the RoDTEP to the
petitioners. This considering the effect of the notification and the policy of the
Government of India on the export of sugar as discussed hereinabove. It would
thus be difficult to accept a proposition that at the material time, the sugar could
be considered to be a totally restricted/prohibited item for export so as to deprive
the petitioners to the benefit of RoDTEP. No doubt that the export of sugar
considering domestic need ought to be regulated, however the regulation is in
terms of the notifications which certainly permit export of appropriate quota as
may be approved by the Directorate of Sugar. If this is held to be an accepted
position by the department, then certainly the benefits of the scheme cannot be
denied to the petitioners, who have acted upon the scheme and have undertaken
exports which certainly are conducive to the national interest and integral to the
foreign trade policy.
Page 14 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
23. In any event, the issue needs to be held to be concluded in view of the

decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (supra) and
M/s.Satyendra Packaging Ltd. (supra), which have attained finality in view of the
Supreme Court dismissing the SLPs.
24. There is substance in the contention of Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the
petitioners, that once the department has accepted the decision of the High
Court of Gujarat in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (supra) and M/s.Satyendra Packaging
Ltd. (supra) where necessarily the principles of law as laid down in the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd. Vs. The
2
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Bombay ought to apply. Chief Justice
Mr. Chagla speaking for the Bench had observed that as a matter of uniform
policy whatever view the Court may have, the view taken by another High Court
on the interpretation of the section of a statute which is an all-India statute, needs
to be accepted. The said decision was followed in the subsequent decision in
3
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-II vs. Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co.
wherein the Division Bench of this Court, following the decision in Maneklal
Chunilal & Sons Ltd. (supra) has made the following observations:
“15. … …… .. In our opinion, therefore, the point is directly
covered by the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in
Viswambharan's case [1973] 91 ITR 588, which was followed
subsequently by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court. It is well-settled practice of this High Court, at least as far as
income-tax law is concerned, that decisions of other High Courts ought to
be followed for the sake of uniformity. In Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd.
v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 375 (Bom), at p. 385, Chagla C.J., has enunciated
the uniform policy pursued by the Bombay High Court in such matters
where the Division Bench followed the view of a Special Bench of the
2 AIR 1954 Bom 135
3 (1982) 137 ITR 257
Page 15 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
Madras High Court, and it is pertinent to note that that view was followed
although the opposite view favourable to the assessee appealed more to the
Division Bench. Observations to the same effect are to be found in CIT v.
Chimanlal J. Dalal & Co. [1965] 57 ITR 285 (Bom). In the latter case the
judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Kantilal Nathuchand
[1964] 53 ITR 420 was doubted but still followed for the sake of
uniformity. We are aware that the practice is not uniform among the High
Courts, but nevertheless we are of opinion that it is desirable one. Unless
the judgment of another High Court dealing with an identical or
comparable provision can be regarded as per in-curium, it should
ordinarily be followed. … … … “

25. In our opinion, the wisdom of the above observations of Chief Justice
Chagla, as followed in Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co. (supra), certainly needs to guide
the department in the present times, more particularly considering the scores of
matters being filed on the same issue before different High Courts, once the issue
has attained finality, qua the department in view of an authoritative
pronouncement by a High Court, similar contended issues ought not to be
agitated by the department before the other High Courts. The situation further
worsens by the department asserting a contrary position before such different
High Courts, thereby inviting different interpretations and orders leading to
judicial chaos. Such an issue certainly needs to be addressed by the Government
of India either in the National Litigation Policy, so that uniform policy in respect
of such issues is followed in proceedings before different High Courts in relation
to Central Legislations and more particularly in tax matters. However, this
certainly with the only exception, as observed in Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd.
(supra) qua a judgment of a High Court dealing with identical or comparable
provisions, if it is regarded as per incuriam .
Page 16 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
26. In the light of the above discussion, in our opinion, the petitioners would

become entitled to the benefits of the RoDTEP, wherever not granted, and in
those cases where the benefit was granted and recovery was initiated, status quo
ante would be required to be maintained by granting the petitioners a refund of
the said amount along with an appropriate rate of interest.
27. As a consequence of the above discussion, the petitions are accordingly
allowed in terms of the following order:
ORDER
(i) It is held that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the
RoDTEP.
(ii) The respondents are directed to grant benefit of rebate under the
RoDTEP Scheme to the petitioners, who have exported sugar with
specific permission under the conditions prescribed by the Directorate of
Sugar as per the Notification No.19/2015-2020 dated 17 August 2021
and Clause 3 of paragraph 2 of the Notification No.76/2021-Customs
(N.T.) dated 23 September 2021, and who have not been granted such
benefit.
(iii) In relation to the benefits which were already granted, and the same
were taken away/withdrawn from the petitioners, requiring them to re-
deposit the benefits as taken, such petitioners be granted refund of the
Page 17 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC
amounts so returned, within a period of four weeks from today, alongwith

the interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
(iv) As a consequence of the aforesaid orders, the respondents shall not
take any coercive action for any recovery in those cases where benefit is
granted.
28. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
( AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 18 of 18
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 22:27:59 :::