Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Accordingly, the petitioners had applied for CDEC so as import and clear hospital equipments duty free. Officers from the Health Department of the State Government visited the Hospital and recommended grant of CDEC to the petitioners. In one such recommendation given by the State Government, it is stated as follows : -

5. Based on the above recommendations, the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, issued several CDEC's to the petitioners for imports of various hospital equipments duty free. One such CDEC issued by the Govt. of India on the basis of which the hospital equipments imported by the petitioners were allowed clearance duty free, reads thus : -

"Certified that the hospital in respect which to exemption from payment of customs duty is claimed as necessary for running or maintenance of the hospital in terms of Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). Notification No.64/88 dated 1.3.1988. The hospital falls in category II of the table annexed to the said notification.

10. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in the letter dated ig 28th March, 2000, it was specifically stated that it has come to the notice of the authorities that the petitioners have not fulfilled the post importation conditions and while calling for the particulars within the stipulated period, it was specifically stated that if the petitioners failed to furnish the relevant particulars, it would be considered that the petitioners are not interested in continuing with the CEDC granted to them earlier. Thus, the petitioners were put to notice that if the post importation conditions are not fulfilled then the CDEC is liable to be cancelled. On the basis of the particulars furnished by the petitioners, it is evident that post importation conditions are not fulfilled and hence cancellation of CDEC cannot be faulted. In these circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners that no opportunity is given to them before passing the impugned order cannot be sustained. Mr. Desai further submitted that it was not obligatory on the part of the Deputy Director General (M) to grant a personal hearing and if on the basis of the particulars furnished by the petitioners, it could be established that there was no compliance with the post importation conditions, then the order cancelling the CDEC cannot be faulted.

In the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, the order impugned in the present petition must be held to have been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice.

13. Secondly, it is not the case of the revenue that the particulars furnished by the petitioners on the basis of which CDEC's were issued were erroneous or that the clearances made were contrary to the CDEC's. If the CDEC's issued as well as the clearances of the imported goods on the basis of CDEC's were in accordance with law, then for violation of the post importation conditions set out in the Notification No.64 of 1988 whether the CDEC's could be cancelled is the question which needs consideration. In other words, whether the CDEC's could be cancelled for the alleged violation of post importation conditions, is the question to be considered in the present case. However, it is not necessary for us to go into the above questions, because those questions have not been considered in the impugned order and the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice.