Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

227. os wp 325-09.doc on Mr. Bhatt.

8. Mr. Mishra submitted that name of Mr. Bhatt was also appearing on the Import Export Code and if Mr. Bhatt had resigned, after his resignation from the company, he ought to have applied to get his name deleted from the Import Export Code by applying to the concerned Authority for modification. We note that these are bald allegations made in the affidavit-in-reply with no requirement shown for any such application on the part of a person whose name appears at some point of time as a director of a company. In any event Form 32, which is a public document, has been filed by TPI and we would expect a Special Investigating Agency like respondent No. 2 to make an inquiry in the office of the Registrar of Companies and find out who were the directors. We would also expect respondent No. 2 to address a communication to TPI to find out who are the directors and their current addresses and issue separate notices to each of them by identifying the role played by each of the director who can be held responsible for TPI not fulfilling the alleged obligations under FTDRA.

'6. And whereas the above action of the noticee firm contravene the provision of para 4.20 of Chapter 4 the Export and Imports Policy Book 1997-2002 and Sec. 11(1), (2) and (3) of the Foreign Trade (D & R) Act, 1992. Now therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Sec. 8(1)(a)(b) of the Foreign Trade (D & R) Act, 1992, I call upon the noticee firm to show-cause within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why action should not be taken under Section 11(4) to cancel/suspend the importer/exporter Code No. 3794000013, if you want to be heard in person to explain the case, appear before the undersigned on 21-10-2003 at 3-00 p.m.'

227. os wp 325-09.doc importer/exporter code and no penalty either on the company or the Directors is proposed. Fourthly no role or act is specified in the show-cause notice by which the directors could be said to have abetted or attempted to make any export or import in contravention of any provisions of the F.T.D.R. or rules and order made thereunder or the Foreign Trade Policy. Fifthly so far as the petitioners are concerned no opportunity of hearing is given therefore there is clear violation of principle of natural justice. By merely providing the notice that the contents be brought to the notice of the directors who may submit their response would not be sufficient notice to them. In the notice no allegations were made against the Directors. In fact the notice itself provided that all directors should be asked to forward their submissions separately "as the action as deemed fit is also proposed to be taken against them after examination of the reply submitted by them". This itself suggests that in the show-cause notice there was no definite proposal against the Directors. In this view of the matter the show-cause notice is no show-cause notice in the eye of law and therefore the consequential orders are also required to be nullified. The impugned order-in-original dated 15-7-2009 and order-in-appeal dated 7-10-2010 are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute."