Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The third respondent issued a show cause notice dated 04.09.2006 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them to cancel the licence ab initio and to suspend the Import Export Code (IEC for short) apart from refusing further licence to them in terms of para 4.24.1 of Hand Book Procedures 2004-2009.

9. The petitioner vide reply dated 07.09.2006 to the show cause notice, filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice. That on 27.11.2006, the Foreign Trade Development Officer called the petitioner to clarify the words "though other export" and informed the petitioner that policy to fulfill the export obligation in time would attract the penal provisions under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 on 01.12.2006 stating that it had fulfilled its export obligation by exporting HCGMB and also applied for extension of time for fulfilling the said obligation by period of six months. The petitioner clarified that by the term "other exports" it means the export of HCGMB in addition to the turnover that they have submitted earlier for consideration of fulfillment of export obligation. The Foreign Trade Development Officer informed the petitioner through a letter dated 08.12.2006 stating that not a single shipment had been effected against their advance licence and export obligation period had expired on 30.11.2006. the petitioner was called upon to submit the export obligation documents as prescribed under para 4.25 Hand Book of Procedures within two months of expiry of the export obligation period as per the para 4.24. the petitioner vide letter dated 26.12.2006 stated that they were entitled to the benefit under DEPB as well as duty free imports of furnace oil for captive power generation to the extent mentioned in General Note for fuel towards the same export of finished goods. The petitioner further stated that it had approached the Policy Relaxation Committee/Grievance Committee in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide letter dated 02.12.2006 seeking clarification in respect of the issue in dispute and requested that no action be initiated against it, pending their representation before the Policy Relaxation Committee/Grievance Committee. The respondent No.3 passed an ex parte order in original dated 11.01.2007 and proceeded to cancel the advance licence, suspend the IEC till the entire amount of custom duties plus 15% interest from the date of export and an amount equivalent to 3% of CIF value of imported material was paid and further ordered that no further licences would be issued to the petitioner under any Duty Exemption Schemes in terms of para 4.24.1 of the Hand Book of Procedures 2004-2009 until the above dues are recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2007, filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority filed the writ petition.

10. Learned Single Judge after considering the material on record, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the appellate authority and set aside the order of the appellate authority and issued a mandamus directing the respondent to accept exports affected by the petitioner directly or indirectly towards fulfillment of the obligation under the impugned advance licence as well as the benefit of DEPB which he has already claimed against the exports and further directed the respondents to restore the Import and Export Code of the petitioner and withdraw the cancellation of advance licence and also further directed to refund the amount forthwith.