Section 5. Foreign Trade Policy.

Judgments on Section 5

• Mr. R. K. Digital Solutions vs Hyderabad - G S T — CESTAT, 28 Nov 2025. A notification or Explanation that changes or widens the scope of the main provision operates only prospectively and cannot apply to imports made before its date, and where no restriction existed on the date of import,…
• M/S.Kwalitee Fabs vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 25 Jun 2025. Without a prior determination by the DGFT that an instrument issued under the FTDR Act (such as an MEIS duty scrip) was obtained by collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, customs authorities cannot take…
• M/S. Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Commr. Of Customs, Cochin-9 — Supreme Court of India, 24 Feb 2009. The categorization or re-categorization of imported goods as free or restricted can be effected only by a specific amendment to the Foreign Trade Policy under Section 5 of the FTDR Act, 1992, by the Central Government,…
• Hazel Mercantile Limited vs Kandla Customs — CESTAT, 7 Sep 2026. Where the department's test reports are inconclusive or bested by more specialized reports under the 'most akin' test, and the disputed goods are merely a species of the declared genus (NGL within Naphtha) covered by…
• The Principal Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Gimpex Limited — Telangana High Court, 11 Aug 2026. Where an exemption/policy provision is genuinely ambiguous and the importer proceeds on an interpretation later upheld by High Courts, there is no intent to evade duty, and the extended period of limitation under the…
• Rika Global Impex Limited vs Union Of India — Bombay High Court, 3 Aug 2026. Legitimate expectation is not an enforceable right against a well-reasoned policy decision, and judicial interference is warranted only where the decision suffers from arbitrariness so as to offend Article 14, since…
• Alamelu Balaji Spinning Mills P Ltd vs Tuticorin — CESTAT, 29 May 2026. Penalties under Sections 112(a), 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act require deliberate falsification or knowing use of false documents and cannot be sustained where the dispute stems from interpretational ambiguity over…
• Sree Koppammal Cotton Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Tuticorin — CESTAT, 27 Apr 2026. Once an EODC or EPCG instrument has been issued by the DGFT and has not been cancelled or suspended by the competent authority under the FTDR Act, the customs authorities cannot go behind it or confirm duty demands and…
• Union Of India vs M/S Malik Tanning Industries — Delhi High Court, 13 Jan 2026. The scope of a broad entry in the Handbook of Procedures conferring export incentive benefits cannot be curtailed by a clarificatory DGFT circular; restriction is permissible only by amendment of the HBP, which cannot…
• Adani Gangavaram Port Limited (Agpl) vs Union Of India — Telangana High Court, 8 Jan 2026. A policy circular ultra vires the FTDR Act—amending the FTP without a Section 5 notification—is a nullity once quashed and absent any stay, so all proceedings founded on it, including Section 28AAA duty recovery, must…
• R.K.Jewels vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Acc… — CESTAT, 7 Jan 2026. Customs authorities cannot recover duty under section 28(1)/28AAA or deny benefits on the ground that an import licence or other instrument issued under the FTDR Act was wrongly obtained unless and until the DGFT itself…
• Commissioner Of Customs - Chennai Ii… vs Hyundai Motor India Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 16 Dec 2025. Ex post facto approval by DGFT ratifying installation of EPCG capital goods at a supporting manufacturer's premises cures the initial breach of the exemption condition, and a duty demand is premature where the export…
• M/S Gold Ripe International Pvt Ltd vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 12 Dec 2025. Where imported goods are found on official testing to be mis-declared restricted items, they are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, with redemption only under Section 125 on payment of a fine,…
• Chillies Exporters Association India vs Directorate General Of Foreign Trade & Anr. — Delhi High Court, 10 Dec 2025. Delegated or subordinate legislation can only be prospective and not retrospective unless the statute specifically vests the rule-making authority with power to make it retrospective, and neither Section 3 nor Section 5…
• Interglobe Enterprises Private… vs Commissioner Of Customs-New Delhi — CESTAT, 20 Nov 2025. Once an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) has been issued by the DGFT, it is determinative and deemed to be completion of all export obligations, and customs cannot confirm a duty demand where no evidence…
• Indu Shekhar vs Union Of India And Anr — Bombay High Court, 3 Oct 2025. The power to amend the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — and hence to change the tariff classification of goods from one Chapter Heading to another — vests in the Central Government alone under Section…
• Global Impex Trading vs The Additional Director General — CESTAT, 8 Aug 2025. Mere storage of goods is preparation, not an 'attempt to export' under Section 113(d), and neither confiscation, nor re-valuation based on an uncorroborated retracted statement, nor penalty under Section 114(i) (which…
• Sunflag Iron And Steel Co Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr. — Delhi High Court, 28 Mar 2025. Safeguard quantitative restrictions imposed under Section 9A of the FTDR Act, 1992 pursuant to a DGTR investigation under the Safeguard Measures (QR) Rules, 2012 stand on an independent footing and are not subject to…
• Sandoz Private Ltd. vs The Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 4 Jan 2022. In deemed-export supplies from a DTA supplier to an EOU, the DTA supplier — not the EOU as of right — is entitled to refund of Terminal Excise Duty under para 8.3(c) of the applicable FTP, by CENVAT reversal or in cash…
• Union Of India vs Agricas Llp — Supreme Court of India, 26 Aug 2020. Section 9A of the FTDR Act does not elide or negate the power of the Central Government to impose restrictions on imports under sub-section (2) to Section 3, so quantitative restrictions notified under Section 3(2) are…

All 33 judgments