DGFT HQ in Delhi Doesn’t Give Jurisdiction for Hyderabad Firm’s Advance Authorisation Dispute: Delhi HC [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified that the presence of DGFT headquarters in Delhi does not automatically confer jurisdiction over matters related to the rejection of Advance Authorisation applications by regional DGFT offices.

The case began when RAIN CII Carbon Vizag Ltd, a Hyderabad-based company, filed a petition challenging the rejection of its Advance Authorisation request by the DGFT Regional Authority in Hyderabad. The company had applied for duty-free import of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) to manufacture Calcined Pet Coke (CPC) for export to Special Economic Zones (SEZs). The application was denied based on DGFT Notification No. 68/2023, which restricted CPC exports to SEZs.

Read More: Major TCS Changes from April 1, 2025: Removed on Sales, Foreign Education & More

The company argued that its supply to SEZs should qualify for Advance Authorisation under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2023 and orders issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM). They claimed that the DGFT's rejection contradicted previous legal permissions and sought relief from the Delhi High Court, citing the DGFT’s headquarters being located in Delhi.

The Respondents’ counsel opposed the petition, arguing that the rejection was issued by the DGFT Regional Authority in Hyderabad, and the company was based in Hyderabad. They argued that merely because the DGFT headquarters is in Delhi does not mean the case should be heard there, explaining the doctrine of forum conveniens, which dictates that cases should be heard in the most appropriate jurisdiction.

Read More: Shocking Incident: Delhi Policeman Beats Advocate with Iron Rod in Public

The bench comprising Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the case should be filed in the appropriate state High Court (Telangana or Andhra Pradesh). The court noted that all key aspects of the case including the company’s location, the application, and the rejection occurred outside Delhi, making Delhi an improper venue for the case.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition ruling that jurisdiction should be determined based on where the primary cause of action arises, not the location of an authority's headquarters.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates