M/S. Discite Private Limited vs Additional Director General Of Foreign ... on 3 November, 2022

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S. Discite Private Limited vs Additional Director General Of Foreign ... on 3 November, 2022

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

                          $~33
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 15197/2022 & CM APPL.46990/2022
                                 M/S. DISCITE PRIVATE LIMITED               ......Petitioner
                                                 Through: Ms Anjali J. Manish, Adv.

                                                     versus

                                 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN
                                 TRADE & ORS.                           ......Respondents
                                               Through: Mr Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr
                                                        Gaurav Kumar and Mr Mohit Joshi,
                                                        Advs.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
                                                     ORDER

% 03.11.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the respondent no.1.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact, that via the impugned communication the petitioner's Import and Export Code ("IEC") has been suspended. [See Annexure P-10 appended on page 224 of the case file].

3. According to Ms Anjali Jha Manish, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says neither a show-cause notice ["SCN"] was served, nor was the petitioner given any opportunity to place its stand on record before ordering suspension of its license.

W.P.(C) 15197/2022 1/3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:10.11.2022 11:54:10

4. A perusal of the impugned communication shows, that respondent no.1 had called upon the petitioner's authorized representative to appear before him, for a personal hearing, on or before 23.09.2022.

5. Ms Manish says, that the authorized representative i.e., the director of the petitioner company presented himself on 23.09.2022, and followed up the same with a written representation. [See Annexure P-11 appended on page 228 of the case file].

6. Ms Manish submits, that the process followed by respondent no.1 is contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 [in short "1992 Act"]

7. In support of her plea, Ms Manish has also relied on Rule 9 of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 [in short "1993 Rules"].

8. The record shows, that a SCN dated 04.03.2020 was served on the petitioner, and on the then directors on the board of the petitioner.

9. Broadly, the allegation levelled against the noticees is that they have indulged in money laundering.

10. The record shows, that an adjudication order dated 22.07.2021 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (In-situ), Adjudication Cell (Airport), Customs House, Kolkata.

11. We are informed by Ms Manish, that the adjudication order dated 22.07.2021 has been assailed by the petitioner, before the Calcutta High Court.

11.1 In this regard, our attention has been drawn to Annexure P-4, which appears to be a copy of the order passed by the said Court, on 10.02.2022.

W.P.(C) 15197/2022 2/3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:10.11.2022 11:54:10

12. We may note, that the provisions contained in Section 8 of the 1992 Act are suggestive of the fact, that principles of natural justice should ordinarily be followed, before suspension or cancellation of IEC is ordered. 12.1 This is evident, as the expression used in the said Section is "may".

13. Therefore, unless there is an emergent situation, which, at the present juncture, we are not able to gather from the record available with us, the petitioner ought to have been served with a SCN, wherein a reference should have been made to the proposed action.

13.1 This step ought to have been followed by a personal hearing.

14. Mr Asheesh Jain, who appears on behalf of the respondents on advance notice, says that he would have to obtain instructions in the matter.

15. According to Mr Jain, a SCN was previously issued and served on the petitioner.

16. Mr Jain will return with instructions, as to how the respondents would move forward in the matter.

16.1 In case instructions are received to resist the petition, counter- affidavit(s) will be filed, before the next date of hearing.

17. List the matter on 14.12.2022.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J NOVEMBER 3, 2022/pmc Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 15197/2022 3/3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:10.11.2022 11:54:10

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders