Karnataka High Court
Wipro Limited vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2997
WP No. 46612 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 46612 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
WIPRO LIMITED
NO.76-P-80-P, SARJAPUR ROAD,
DODDAKANNALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY SRI.K.BALASUBRAMANIAN,
VICE PRESIDENT-CORPORATE TAXATION.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VENKATESH S.ARBATTI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
Digitally signed by
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,
THEJASKUMAR N MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY,
Location: High GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
Court of UDYOG BHAVAN,
Karnataka
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,
"KENDRIYA SADAN", 6TH FLOOR,
C & E WING, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
KORAMANGALA, 2ND BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 034.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
FOREIGN TRADE,
"KENDRIYA SADAN", 6TH FLOOR,
C & E WING, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2997
WP No. 46612 of 2017
KORAMANGALA, 2ND BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 034.
5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
FOREIGN TRADE,
"KENDRIYA SADAN", 6TH FLOOR,
C & E WING, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
KORAMANGALA, 2ND BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.S.ANUSUYADEVI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Venkatesh S.Arbatti., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.S.Anusuyadevi., CGSC for the respondents have appeared in person.
2. The short facts are these:
The petitioner - WIPRO Limited Bangalore is engaged in the manufacture and export of Information Technology products. For the purpose of its exports and imports, the petitioner has been issued Import Export Code IEC No.0488006040 in terms of the Foreign Trade (Development & -3- NC: 2025:KHC:2997 WP No. 46612 of 2017 Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The petitioner was conducting the business.
As the matter stood thus, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 23.03.2015 from the fifth respondent on behalf of the third respondent on 02.04.2015. The petitioner suitable replied to the notice on 21.04.2015. The Government considered the reply and it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the documents submitted by it are not sufficient to consider the redemptions. The petitioner was also directed to regularize all the cases by paying duty plus interest as applicable and final opportunity of one month was given to the petitioner failing which they would adjudicate the case as per the provisions of FTD&R Act. As the things stood thus, the Director General of Foreign Trade placed the petitioner in Denied Entity List. Under these circumstances, having left with no other alternate and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Counsel Sri.Venkatesh S.Arbatti., for the petitioner submits that a representation was submitted by the petitioner -4- NC: 2025:KHC:2997 WP No. 46612 of 2017 on 25.04.2016. However, the same has not been considered. The inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 3 in relation to the representation has resulted miscarriage of justice. He argued by saying that the petitioner has been placed in the Denied Entity List without following the due process of law and the same is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material on record. He vehemently contends that the non- consideration of the representation by respondents 2 and 3 amounts to gross inaction on their part. Counsel submits that an opportunity may be accorded for the petitioner to furnish the required documents as sought by respondents 2 and 3 to consider its request. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.
Counsel for the respondents urged several contentions and submits that an appropriate order may be passed.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
5. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to placing the petitioner in the Denied Entity List. The grievance of the petitioner is that it has given a representation -5- NC: 2025:KHC:2997 WP No. 46612 of 2017 on 25.04.2016 and without considering the same, it has been placed in the Denied Entity List. The representation is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-J. A perusal of the same reflects that it's a detailed representation and it runs 11 pages. Without considering the said representation, the Director General of Foreign Trade placed the petitioner in the Denied Entity List. This is untenable. The action on the part of the respondents cannot be sustained. The authority concerned ought to have considered the representation that was submitted by the petitioner before taking any action against it. Hence, this Court deems it proper to direct respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
6. A Mandamus is ordered directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 25.04.2016 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-J in accordance with the law. The third respondent is hereby directed to remove the petitioner's name from the Denied Entity List.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:2997 WP No. 46612 of 2017
8. Lastly, counsel Sri.Venkatesh S.Arbatti., submits that while passing the interim order, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.8 Crores with the Commissioner of Customs. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited the same with the Commissioner of Customs. Counsel further submits that in view of disposal of the Writ Petition, an appropriate direction may be issued to the Commissioner of Customs to refund the amount in favor of the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondents submits that an appropriate order may be passed.
The oral submission made by counsel for the respective parties is placed on record.
In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby directed to refund the amount in deposit in favor of the petitioner on proper identification.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30