Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The judgment of the Division Bench would indicate that what was left open for determination on remand was whether the 1st Respondent in the course of its adjudication had the power to impose a penalty, to order the payment of compensation and to issue recommendations to the Director General of Foreign Trade. After the order of remand was passed by this Court, a supplementary notice to show cause was issued by the Respondents on 4 August 2010. The notice laid bare the allegations made against the Petitioner in regard to the forgery of shipping documents and falsification of documents. The Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the following amounts should not be recovered in Dmt 11 wpl1663-11 terms of the notification dated 12 November 1999 and 9 November 2004 and under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.:

Dmt 14 wpl1663-11

10. On the other hand, it is urged on behalfe of the Respondents that : (i) The notification dated 12 November 1999 is issued by the Union Government in pursuance of the provisions of the Exim Policy and the statutory source of power is to be found in Section 3 (2) and Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992; (ii) The function of the Enforcement Committee is to deal with cases involving fraudulent activities, misrepresentation of facts and falsification of documents or forgery amongst other things in connection with obtaining, utilising or proving the utilization of quotas; (iii) The conferment of the power is all encompassing and is in the widest possible terms and when it deals with cases involving fraudulent activities or misrepresentation of facts, the Enforcement Committee must have all incidental and ancillary powers to deal with wrong doing; (iv) Para 17 (v) of the notification dated 12 November 1999 is not exhaustive of the powers of the Enforcement Committee. To hold that the Enforcement Committee merely has the power to debar an exporter from obtaining entitlements and from participating in Dmt 15 wpl1663-11 the entitlement scheme for a specified period, would defeat the object of the Act and would render the Enforcement Committee powerless to rectify the consequences of a wrong doing by an exporter; (v) Though the textile quota regime has been abolished with effect from 1 April 2005, the subsequent notification issued by the Union Government on 9 November 2004 makes it clear that the provisions of the earlier notification relating to the procedure to deal with quota malpractices and in regard to the forfeiture of earnest money deposits has been saved. Similarly, the subsequent notification makes it clear that any such procedure or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any penalty or consequent punishment imposed as if the earlier notification had been in force. Moreover, it has been clarified that the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 would continue to be applicable; (vi) In the present case, a finding of fact has been recorded that the exporter had indulged in serious malpractices involving fabrication of documents. In the earlier round of proceedings before this Dmt 16 wpl1663-11 Court the debarment of the exporter was not contested and the facts on the basis of which the debarment was effected had not been questioned. In that view of the matter, the action which has been taken by the authorities falls within the purview of law and is intra vires.

                          (a)    Any fraudulent activity
                          
                          (b)    Any misrepresentation of facts

                          (c)    Any   falsification   of   documents   or 
        


                                 forgery
     



                          (d)    Submission   of   post-dated   cheques   for 





                                 extension   of   entitlements   which   are 

                                 dishonoured   on   presentation   to   his 

                                 bank."





                                               (emphasis supplied)

involving the use of (i) fraudulent activity, (ii) misrepresentation of facts, (iii) falsification of documents or forgery and (iv) submission of post dated cheques for extension of entitlements which are dishonoured, in connection with obtaining, extending, utilising or proving the utilisation of quotas. The notification contains in its recital a statement that it was issued in pursuance of the provisions contained in the Exim Policy for 1997-2002. The statutory source of power for the issuance of the notification is traceable to sub-section (2) of Section 3 under which the Central Government is empowered to prohibit, restrict or regulate the import or export of goods in all cases Dmt 24 wpl1663-11 or any specified classes of cases and subject to such exceptions as it may make. Evidently, the object of the notification was to regulate the export of goods in certain specified classes of cases. The conferment of power on the Enforcement Committee is to deal with cases involving serious wrong doing in connection with the grant or utilisation of quotas. The words "deal with" have a broad connotation in law as was noticed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration vs. Ram Singh. 2 This view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment of Sachidananda Benerji v. Sitaram Agarwala 3 "Deal with" is an expression of wide import and ambit. When the quota policy confers the substantive power on the Enforcement Committee to deal with cases involving, inter alia, fraudulent activity, misrepresentation of fact and falsification of documents or forgery, all incidental and ancillary powers necessary to achieve the substantive object, must be regarded as being vested in the Enforcement Committee. Evidently, the Enforcement Committee 2 AIR 1962 SC 63 3 AIR 1966 SC 955 (See para 18) Dmt 25 wpl1663-11 was constituted specifically to deal with cases involving serious malpractices and fraud and, therefore, it would be natural to expect that the conferment of power to deal with those cases was accompanied by the vesting of the authority in the Enforcement Committee to take necessary action to deal with abuse or malpractice. Clause (v) of Para 17 states that where a Committee holds an exporter guilty of fraud or other irregularities, it is entitled to debar the exporter from obtaining entitlements and from participating in the scheme for a specified period. Clause (v) however is not exhaustive of the power which the notification confers upon the Committee. In a case such as the present, it is evident that the wrong doing was detected sometime in October 2004 whereas the quota regime was to come to an end on 31 December 2004. To hold that the powers of the Enforcement Committee would stand exhausted upon a debarment for the period covered by the Scheme, would be virtually to defeat the public purpose underlying the conferment of power. Such an interpretation cannot be adopted particularly when a notification, which has a Dmt 26 wpl1663-11 statutory basis, uses broad words such as "deal with cases" of fraudulent activity and "In connection with" obtaining, extending, utilising or proving the utilisation of quotas.