IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1140 of 2006(D) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.23272/2002 Dated 17/03/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN. 3. THE CUSTOMS COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCISE SRI.P.J.PHILIP, C.G.C RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.K.S.GANDHARA IYER & CO., P.O.BOX NO.3836, ALLEPPEY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER K.S.GANGADHARA IYER. 2. M/S.ALEXANDER COIR WORKS, P.B.NO.188, ALLEPPEY-688 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, V.A.BHASI. 3. M/S.LAXMI COIR MATS & MATTINGS EXPORT P.B.NO.27, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAJAPPAN. 4. M/S.ARUN COIR INDUSTRIES, P.B.NO.179, VAZHICHERY BRIDGE, ALLEPPEY-688 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR N.JEERADANANDAN. 2/- -2- W.A.NO.1140/2006 5. M/S.KANTI FLOOR ISHERS, P.B.NO.04, ALLEPPEY-688 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, KALYANASUNDARAM. 6. M/S.NARENDRAN SONS, KADAPPAKKAD KOLLAM-691 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, NARESH NARENDRAN. 7. M/S.WARP & WEFT, A-7 EXPRESS GRADENS KALOOR, COCHIN-18, REPRESENTED BY T.P.SHAH. 8. M/S.BABU COIR WORKS, POST BOX NO.4, THUMPOLLY, ALLEPPEY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, A.T.JOHNKUTTY. 9. M/S.REGAL EXPORTS, 10-A, NEDUNGADAN RESIDENCY, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR R.R.PANICKER. 10. M/S.EAST WEST EXPORTS, P.O.BOX NO.2627, ALLEPPEY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, RAIJU.S. 11. M/S.ANSON EXPORTS, ANSONS SHOPPING COMPLEX, C.C.S.B.ROAD, ALLEPPEY-7, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER A.AHAMED. 12. M/S.RAM COIR MILLS, P.B.NO.34, CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, A.C.SANTHAKUMAR. 13. M/S.MADHAVAN INC P.B.NO.169, ALLEPPEY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ANILMADHAVAN. 14. M/S.BEENA COIR WORKS, MUHAMMA, ALLEPPEY-688 525, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, BIJU K.JOSEPH. 15. M/S.MEGA EXPORTERS, RUKHIYA BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PARIJATHAN. 16. N.V.GEORGEKUTTY, MANAGING PARTNER, GLENROCK POLYMER (P) LTD, MALLIKASSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3/- -3- W.A.NO.1140/2006 17. FRANZ MUNDADAN, MANAGING PARTNER, ADHYAM GLOBAL, %1/386, WATER FRONT ROAD, CHILAVANNORE, KOCHI. 18. M/S.GLENROCK RUBBER PRODUCTS (P) LTD., GLENROCK OFFICE, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE MANAGER, MATHEW SEBASTIAN.K. 19. NARENDRAN POLYMERS, KOLLAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, NARESH NARENDRAN. 20. M.I.THOMAS, PARTNER, CREATIVE EXPORTS CMC. X.651, CHERTHALA-688 524, ALLEPPEY. R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN R16 & R18 BY ADV.SRI.MATHEW JOHN SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1403 OF 2006 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 23/09/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts W.A.NO.1140/2006 APPENDIX APPELLANT ANNEXURES: ANNEX A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY RUBBER SHIPPER'S COUNCIL TO THE FIRST APPELLANT. ANNEX B COPY OF THE DECISION OF DEPB COMMITTEE MEETING NO.5/2003 HELD ON 7/6/2002. ANNEX C COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.07/2009/2009-2014 DATED 16/9/2009 BY THE FIRST APPELLANT. ANNEX D COPY OF THE POLICY CIRCULAR NO.18/2009-2014 DATED 8/12/2009. ANNEX A(IN IA NO.1009/2006):COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15/1/2006. ANNEX B COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILEDBY THE PETITIONERS. ANNEX C COPY OF THE SHIPPING BILL FOR EXPORT. ANNEX A(IN I.A.1265/09):COPY OF THE SAID CIRCULAR NO 07/2009/2009-2014 DATED 16/9/2009 BY THE FIRST APPELLANT. ANNEX B COPY OF THE POLICY CIRCULAR NO.18/2009-2014 DATED 8/12/2009. ANNEX A(IN IA.NO.182/2001): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.7/2009-2014 BY DGFT ANNEX B COPY OF THE POLICY CIRCULAR NO.18/2009-2014 DATED 8/12/2009 ANNEX C COPY OF THE NOTICE BY COUNSEL FOR FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ANNEX R1(B) COPY OF THE POLICY CIRCULARS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============================== W.A.Nos.1140/2006, 1403/2006, 1410/2006, 1738/2006, O.P.Nos.31262/2002, 2834/2003, WP(C) No.37514/2009, 6221/2010 & 6537/2010 =============================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. Certain common questions of law arise in all these cases and therefore these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For narration of facts, we shall refer to O.P.No.23272/2002, against the Judgment of which, W.A. No.1140/2006 has been filed and W.P.(C)No. 3751/2009 and the parties are described as they are arrayed in the original petitions and writ petitions. 3. The petitioners are exporters of door mats, floor mats etc., which are made out of “Rubber Compounded Sheets” and the subject matter of the litigations is their claim for the benefit of Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DEPB Scheme’ for short). Three such Original Petitions were W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 2 : allowed by this Court and against the Judgments, the Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents therein. 4. O.P.No.23272/2002 was filed by 20 such exporters and the prayers sought are to: “1. Declare the clarification of the 1st respondent in Ext.P10 excluding door mats, foot mats etc. from the purview of D.E.P.B. Entry No.547 can be enforced only by a suitable public notice amending Entry 547 expressly excluding door mats, foot mats etc. from the purview of rubber sheets. 2. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction order commanding the respondents to register the shipping bills submitted by the petitioner under the D.E.P.B. Scheme till the 1st respondent, makes a suitable amendment to D.E.P.B. Entry No.547 by the issuance of a public notice. 3. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to finalize the adjudication of the provisionally registered D.E.P.B shipping bills and disburse the benefit due to the petitioner in respect of those shipping bills.” 5. The factual back ground of the litigation is that under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992, the Central Government is to formulate and announce by notification in the Official Gazette, the Export and Import Policy and may also amend the said policy. In exercise of the said power, the Government of India frames the Export and Import policy from time to time, popularly known as EXIM Policy. In so W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 3 : far as the case is concerned, what is relevant is EXIM Policy governing the period between 1st April 1997 to 31st March 2002. 6. For the present, what is relevant is Chapter VII of the EXIM Policy dealing with the “Duty Exemption Scheme”. Para 7.1 stipulate that the Scheme consists of two components, which are (i) Duty Free License and (ii) Duty Entitlement Pass Book. From para 7.25 onwards, the Policy deals with the Duty Entitlement Pass Book and this paragraph details the objective and benefit of the Scheme and it being relevant, is extracted below for reference: “Para 7.25 – The objective of Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme is to neutralize the incidence of basic customs duty on the import content of the export product. The neutralization shall be provided by way of grant of duty credit against the export product. The duty credit under the scheme shall be calculated by taking into account the deemed import content of the said export product as per Standard Input Output Norms and determine basic customs duty payable on such deemed imports. The value addition achieved by export of such product shall also be taken into account while determining the rate of duty credit under the Scheme. Under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme, an exporter shall be eligible to claim credit as a specified percentage of fob value of exports made in freely convertible currency. The credit shall be available against such export products and at such rate as may be specified by the Director General of Foreign Trade by a Public Notice issued in this behalf. W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 4 : Any item except those appearing in the Negative List of Imports shall be allowed for import without payment of basic customs duty, special duty of customs as well as additional duty of customs, against the credit under a Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB). The holder of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) shall have the option to pay additional customs duty, if any, in cash as well.” 7. The DEPB Scheme essentially allows import without payment of basic customs duty, special duty of customs as well as additional duty of customs on items except those appearing in the Negative List. Such an import without payment of customs duties is permitted against the credit entered in the Pass Book and such credit is to be calculated by taking into account the import content of the product exported as per the Standard Input Output Norms (SION) and also taking into account the value addition achieved by export of such product. The exporter is eligible to claim credit at a specified percentage of FOB value of the exports made. The various eligible export products and the specified percentage of credit vis-à-vis such products, are required to be specified by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) by a Public Notice and in exercise of such authority of the DGFT, Appendix 28A of the EXIM Policy Handbook (Vol. I) is issued. W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 5 : 8. Para 4.11 of the EXIM Policy authorises the DGFT to specify the procedure to be followed by an exporter or an importer or a licencing authority for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Foreign Trade Act, Rules and Orders made thereunder and also the EXIM Policy. Such procedures are mandated to be included in the Handbooks published by the Government of India by means of a Public Notice. It also provides that the procedures specified may in the like manner, be amended from time to time. Para 4.11 being relevant, is extracted for reference: “4.11. The Director General of Foreign Trade may, in any case or class of cases, specify the procedure to be followed by an exporter or importer or by any licensing competent or other authority for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act, the Rules and Orders made thereunder and this Policy. Such procedures shall be included in the Handbook (Vol.1), Handbook (Vol.2) and ITC(HS) Classifications of Export and Import items and published by means of a Public Notice. Such procedures may, in like manner, be amended from time to time. 9. Sub Para 2 of Para 7.25 authorises the DGFT to specify the rate which an exporter is eligible to claim credit with reference to the commodity exported. The various products with reference to which credit can be taken are classified under various heads, such as ‘Engineering’, ‘Chemical’ etc. Entry 547 W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 6 : occurring in the group of chemicals reads as “Rubber Compounded Sheets/ Rings”, thereby making the goods falling within the said description eligible for the benefit of DEPB Scheme calculated at 13% of the FOB value of the goods exported. Ext.P1 in the original petition is the relevant extract of Appendix 28A of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002. 10. According to the petitioners, right from the inception of the DEPB Scheme, they were permitted to register their shipping bills under the Scheme and were availing of the benefit of the Scheme. It is stated that while so, from August 2001 onwards the 2nd respondent denied the benefit of DEPB Scheme to the Doormats/ Floor Mats exported by the petitioners on the ground that the product did not satisfy the description of the Entry 547; ‘Rubber Compounded Sheets’. They were issued Ext.P2 show cause notice stating that the rubber mats are manufactured through vulcanization and moulding process and hence cannot be termed as ‘Rubber Compounded Sheets’ and they were directed to show cause why the shipping bills should not be finalized without the DEPB benefit. On receipt of the show cause W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 7 : notice, Ext.P3 reply was submitted contesting the allegations in Ext.P2 show cause notice. 11. At that stage, some of the exporters filed O.P.Nos.36082 and 36146/2001. In the original petitions, Ext.P4 interim order was passed by this Court directing the 2nd respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 show cause notice and that in the meanwhile, to provisionally register the shipping bills, giving the petitioners the benefit of DEPB Scheme. 12. Meanwhile, the Rubber Shippers Council, an organization representing the exporters, filed Ext.P5 application before the 1st respondent seeking a clarification on the issue. When the 1st respondent was thus seized of the matter, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P7 order holding that Rubber Compounded Sheets and Rubber Mats are two different products and hence the subject goods are not eligible for DEPB Scheme under Serial No.547 of Ext.P1, Appendix 28A of the EXIM Policy. On this basis, it was directed that the shipping bills are to be finalized without extending the benefits under the DEPB Scheme. W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 8 : 13. Subsequently, by Ext.P6 judgment dated 18th February 2002, O.P.No.36082 of 2001 was disposed of relegating the petitioners therein to pursue statutory appellate remedies under the Customs Act 1962 against Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent and clarifying that if the DGFT passes orders on Ext.P5, the petitioners can take advantages of the same. It was also directed that subject to the result of the statutory appeal to be filed, the shipping bills of the petitioners shall be provisionally registered. Accordingly, Ext.P8 appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) invoking his appellate power under Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962. 14. During the pendency of the statutory appeal, the Rubber Shippers Council was issued a notice of hearing on Ext.P5 and accordingly they appeared before the 1st respondent and submitted Ext.P9 written submission. The case was considered by the DEPB Committee and the Committee took the following decision: “The Committee considered the case as per the agenda along with direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The representatives of the Rubber Shippers Council appeared before the Committee and explained that what they are exporting, are covered under rubber compounded sheets. They also explained that Customs W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 9 : have rejected their case only on the ground that their products are not rubber compounded sheets as these are vulcanized. They contended that the vulcanization material – sulphur is covered under the corresponding SION and hence the contention of Customs that the product is not a rubber compounded sheets just because it is vulcanized is not correct and pleaded for giving a clarification to Customs that rubber compounded sheets whether or not vulcanized are covered under this entry. The Committee noted that the DEPB description unde Sl.No.547 under Chemical product at the time of export was “Rubber compounded sheets/rings” and the corresponding SION description covered under Sl.No.A 1704 was “Rubber compounded sheets/rings/gaskets”. The SION entry provided sulphur as one of the inputs. The representative of DIPP clarified that sulphur is used as a vulcanizing agent and a rubber compounded sheet may or may not be vulcanized. The Committee however observed that the product exported by the exporters is rubber mats/foot mats, floor mats etc. of regular shape and size. The Committee also noted that rubber compounded sheets are generally in running length and of irregular shape and against this the items exported are cut to size which are specifically known in the commercial parlance as door mats/foot mats etc. and cannot be considered as rubber sheets. Further the product – door mats etc. involve further processing beyond the stage of sheets. The association members confirmed that sizes are cut according to buyers requirement from the sheets. They however pleaded that this does not change the basic character of sheets. The Committee after detailed deliberations decided to clarify that a rubber compounded sheet may or may not be vulcanized and vulcanized rubber compounded sheet was also covered under DEPB entry No.547 under the Chemical Product Group. It was also decided to clarify that door mats, foot mats etc. which are a stage further to sheets and involve further processing and also known in the commercial parlance as “door mats”, W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 10 : “foot mats” etc. are not covered under rubber compounded sheets and hence ineligible for DEPB benefit under this entry”. 15. This decision of the Committee was communicated to the petitioners under cover of Ext.P10 communication. It was thereupon O.P.No.23272/2002 was filed and the main contention urged in Ground No.2 reads as under: “This further finding of the D.G.F.T. can be legally enforced only by an amendment to entry No.547 which in turn can be done only by the issuance of a public notice. This has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1996 [8] S.C.C. 347. In the light of this decision of the Supreme Court the observation of the D.G.F.T in Ext.P9 cannot be enforced against the petitioner, till it is carried out by way of an amendment to Entry No.547 by a public notice. Till it is so amended the shipping bills submitted by the petitioner are entitled to be registered under the D.E.P.B. Scheme.” 16. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the stand taken was that the commodity exported by the petitioners was door mats/floor mats, which are items separately known in the commercial parlance and that therefore are not covered under Rubber Compounded Sheets included in item 547 of Appendix 28A. Therefore, they contended that the products exported by the petitioners were ineligible for DEPB Benefit. It was also contended that Ext.P10 was only a clarification issued W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 11 : interpreting the EXIM Policy and not an amendment requiring the issuance of a Public Notice, as per 4.11 of the Policy. 17. The original petition was heard along with two connected cases and by judgment rendered on 17.03.2006, a Learned Judge of this Court held that in the nature of the dispute, be it an amendment or clarification, the same can be done only by means of a public notice. On that basis the original petitions were allowed and it was declared that the exports of rubber mats shall be liable to be covered under Entry 547 unless the entry is duly amended by the Central Government or clarified by the DGFT by a public notice. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “But the pleadings in the counter affidavit as well as the submission made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General would show that there is a dispute rather a doubt as to whether the rubber compounded mats would be covered by the DEPB entry – rubber compounded sheets. If that be so, certainly the matter requires either an amendment or a clarification. Be it an amendment or a clarification, in the very nature of its impact on the Export Import Policy, the same can only be duly issued – by means of a public notice, lest, as has happened in the present case there should be different approaches in different Ports. Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed declaring that the export of the rubber mats shall be liable to be covered under entry 547 – rubber compounded sheets unless and until it is duly amended by the Central Government or clarified by the Director General of Foreign Trade by a public notice, if such clarification would W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 12 : meet the purpose. The accounts of the petitioners shall be settled accordingly within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.” 18. It is aggrieved by the common judgment, the Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents in the original petitions and the issues raised in O.P.Nos.31262/2002 and 2834/2003 are also similar. 19. According to the appellants, in pursuance to directions in the judgment under Appeal, during the pendency of these writ appeals, the issue raised by the petitioners in the original petition was considered by an Inter Ministerial Committee constituted by the 1st appellant and a decision was taken to issue a policy circular clarifying that door mats and floor mats etc., are not included in item No.547 (which is now item No.507 in the EXIM Policy of 2009-2014 and reads as rubber compounded sheets/ rings/gaskets). It is stated that accordingly Annexure D Policy Circular No.18/2009-2014, dated 08.12.2009 was issued by the 1st respondent, which reads as under: “2. Accordingly, the matter was again taken up in the DEPB Committee (Inter-ministerial Committee having representatives of Technical Authority as well) meeting held on 29th October 2009 and after detailed deliberations, the following decisions was taken:- W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 13 : “Committee discussed the case afresh in details. Technical members present in the committee were of firm view that the said DEPB entry is meant for the specific export product i.e. “Rubber Compounded Sheets/ Rings/Gasket”. Committee was of the view that “Doormats/ Rubber mats” are further value added product and hence the export price of Doormats/ Rubber mats, in normal case, shall be higher than the price of Rubber Compounded Sheets. It also noted that all Industry DEPB rates are calculated based on customs duties on specific inputs used, their import prices and the export price of the final product and hence more the value addition, the less the DEPB rate. Committee observed that the DEPB rate and the value cap notified against the product as indicated in the DEPB entry serial number 507 (earlier entry No.547) of “Chemicals” product Group was based on the price parameters for the product “Rubber Compounded Sheets/Rings/Gasket” only and not for the value added products such as “Doormat/ Rubber mats”. Accordingly the Committee decided to recommend DGFT for issuance of clarification in compliance with Hon’ble High Court order, as stated above”. On the issuance of Annexure D Policy Circular, producing the same as Ext.P11, Writ Petition No.37514 of 2009 was filed, with the following prayers: “[1] Declare Ext.P11 is legally insufficient to exclude door mats, foot mats etc. form the purview of Entry 547 (now 507) of Ext.P1 and the same can be enforced only by issuance of a suitable public notice amending the Entry expressly excluding door mats, foot mats from the purview of rubber compounded sheets. [2] issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ , direction or order commanding the 2nd respondent to register the shipping bills submitted by the petitioner under the D.E.P.B. Scheme till the 1st respondent makes a suitable amendment to the D.E.P.B W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 14 : Entry No.547 (now 507) of Ext.P1 by issuance of a suitable public notice.” Similar prayers are also sought in W.P.(C).Nos.6537/2010 and 6221/2010. 20. The main contention raised in W.P.(C) Nos.37514/2009 and its connected cases is that the scheme introduced by a public notice, can be lawfully amended only by the issuance of another public notice issued complying with all the requirements for the issuance of the same. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.37514/2009, the contention raised by respondents is that Ext.P11 policy circular is not an amendment of the scheme, but only clarified the existing position that the products exported by the petitioners are not covered by the DEPB Scheme. 21. We heard the detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties who have reiterated the contentions noticed above. The issue which mainly arises for consideration is the legality of Ext.P10 in O.P.No.23272 of 2002, against the judgment of which, W.A.No.1140 of 2006 is filed and Ext.P11 Policy Circular No.18/2009-2014 dated 08.12.2009 challenged in W.P.(C) No.37514/2009 and connected cases. Incidentally the question whether the Door Mats/ Floor Mats W.A.Nos.1140/2006 & conn. cases : 15 : exported by the petitioners are eligible for the benefit of DEPB Scheme also will have to be considered. 22. To appreciate the correctness of the finding of the Learned Single Judge that in the absence of an amendment to Ext.P1 Public Notice issued in terms of the provisions contained in para 4.11 of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002, the products exported by the petitioners cannot be denied DEPB Benefit and therefore until an amendment or a clarification is issued by way of a Public Notice, the exporters are entitled to the benefit of DEPB Scheme, reference will