Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This order was confirmed in appeal on 16 November 2005.

The Petitioner moved this Court together with seven other related concerns in an earlier set of seven petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Dmt 9 wpl1663-11

6. By a judgment dated 7 May 2010, a Division Bench of this Court noted that the Petitioner had not challenged the finding "relating to the acts and omissions constituting foundation for debarment".1 Consequently the action of the authorities to debar the Petitioner from exporting textile products for a period of three years was held to be justifiable with reference to the provisions of Clause 17 (v) of the notification of the Union Ministry of Textiles dated 12 November 1999. Though the Division Bench upheld the debarment of the Petitioner for a period of three years, taking note of the fact that the foundation of fact forming the basis of the debarment had not been challenged, the Division Bench held that the notices to show cause contained no reference either to the subsequent notification dated 9 November 2004 or to the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Consequently, this Court held that the orders impugned before it were liable to be set aside and the proceedings remitted back to the 1st Respondent for considering 1 Para 14 of the judgment Dmt 10 wpl1663-11 afresh the question as to whether payment of compensation could be ordered, penalties could be levied and directions to the Petitioner to deposit various amounts could be issued by the 1st Respondent together with a recommendation to the Director General of Foreign Trade to suspend the import export code number issued to the Petitioner.

The rival submissions now fall for determination.

11. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 is an Act to provide for development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports into, and augmenting exports from, India and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3(1) empowers the Central Government by an order published in the Official Gazette to make provisions for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports and increasing exports. Under sub-section (2) of Section 3, the Central Government may also by an order Published in the Official Gazette make provisions for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, in all cases Dmt 17 wpl1663-11 or in specified classes of cases and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the Order, the import or export of goods. Under Section 5, the Central Government is empowered from time to time to formulate and announce the export and import policy and to amend the policy. Section 7 stipulates that no person shall make any import or export except under an Importer-exporter Code Number granted by the Director-General or the officer authorised by him. Section 8 provides for suspension and cancellation of the Importer-

The only issue left open was the power of the Enforcement Committee to demand compensation, impose a penalty or to issue a recommendation to DGFT to suspend the Exporter-

Importer Code. Even after the order of the Division Bench, the Petitioner was clearly placed on notice by the supplementary show cause notice dated 4 August 2010 of the case against it.

21. The Petitioner has also questioned the Dmt 37 wpl1663-11 recommendations made by the Enforcement Committee to the Director-General of Foreign Trade, inter alia, to suspend the Importer-exporter Code Number of the Petitioner and the further recommendation that the companies in which certain specified persons are partners, proprietors or directors should not be issued an IE Code Number. This is a recommendation made by the Committee. In the event that the Director-