Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.