Calcutta High Court
Afsar Ali Gazi vs Deputy Director General Of Foreign ... on 4 August, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 383 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
AFSAR ALI GAZI
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 4th August, 2017.
Appearance:
Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv.
Ms. Sutapa Mitra, Adv.
For the petitioner.
Ms. Debjani Ray, Adv.
For the respondents.
The Court : The petitioner assails a suspension order dated March 23, 2017 issued under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is an handling agent. It is alleged against the petitioner that, the petitioner had allegedly involved itself in the export of consignment of red dry chilies of M/s. S.B. Impex. He submits that, such S.B. Impex has issued a letter saying that, the petitioner is not involved. The suspension order is non-speaking. The suspension order, therefore, should be set aside.
2
Learned Advocate appearing for the Department submits quoting of a wrong section in the impugned order does not vitiate the order itself. The name of the petitioner came out from the police investigation. In the criminal proceedings the accused have since been charge-sheeted. At this stage, any reversal order of suspension will not be beneficial to the revenue.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The petitioner is engaged in the business of import and export. The petitioner had suffered a show cause notice issued under the provision of the Act of 1992. It had replied thereto. The reply to the show cause notice is, however, not on record. Upon consideration the show cause and reply thereto, the authorities by the impugned order has found that the explanation given by the petitioner in the reply to the show cause is not satisfactory. They have proceeded to suspend the operation of the importer and exporter code allotted to the petitioner. There is a wrong quoting of the sections in the impugned order. It does not vitiate the order itself, in the facts of the preset case. The petitioner was well aware of the proceeding inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had replied thereto. The petitioner, however, has not produced the reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, there is no material to arrive at the finding that, the observation made in the impugned order that, there are no satisfactory explanation against the show cause notice, is perverse. The reason why the impugned order was passed is that, the explanation given is not satisfactory. This reason has not been substantiated to be perverse. 3
In such circumstances, I find no merit in the present writ petition. WP No. 383 of 2017 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) snn.