Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court

Vivid Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Addl. Director General Of Foreign Trade ... on 9 January, 2014

Author: Harish Tandon

Bench: Harish Tandon

                          WP No. 1282 of 2013
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        ORIGINAL JURISDICTION


                                         Vivid Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
                                                                    Versus
                             Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.


Before:
The Hon'ble Justice Harish Tandon
Date: 9th January 2014

                                                               Appearance:
                                               Mr. V. N. Dwivedi, Advocate
                                              Mr. Piyush Dwivedi, Advocate
                                                          for the petitioner
                                        Mr. Uttam Kr. Mazumder, Advocate
                                                       for the respondent

The Court: Under the foreign trade policy for the year 2009-14 the petitioner claimed a benefit under the deemed export which was initially sanctioned, but later withdrawn. Various correspondence were exchanged thereafter by and between the petitioner and the respondent authorities relating to the above claim. The matter was thereafter referred to the policy interpretation committee of the respondent no. 3 who ultimately held that the dispute does not involve policy interpretation and redirected the matter to be considered by the regional authority being respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein.

The petitioner alleges that the authorities are not finally deciding the issue which is lingering on for more than four years and above. Since the 2 policy interpretation committee has reverted the matter to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 who are otherwise the competent authorities to take the decision this Court feels that the justice would be subserved if the aforesaid respondents are directed to take decision within a short span of time.

The aforesaid respondents are directed to take a decision on the basis of the issues raised by the petitioner and shall see that the same is taken within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Needless to mention that this Court has no occasion to go into the merit of the claim of the petitioner and the said authorities while decide the issue shall do so independently and without any influence of any observation made hereinabove.

It goes without saying that since the writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage without affidavits the allegations contained therein shall not be deemed to have been admitted by the respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon, J.) R. Bose AR(CR)