Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J] Challenging the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the learned Judge in W.P. No. 383 of 2017, the appellant / assessee has come up with this appeal.

2.The necessary facts leading to the filing of this appeal, would run thus:

2.1. The appellant is in the business of import and export and has obtained Import Export Code No.0492020779. During the course of the same, they had obtained four EPCG authorisations from the third respondent for import of vapour absorption heat pump, membrane filter press, lenser mixed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis pack PP membrane, Deliniting Hulling & Oil Pressing Equipment, Diesel Generating Set and Centrifugal Separator. With the use of the imported goods, the appellant has an obligation to export Vanaspathi and Margarine.

2.4. Subsequently, as per the communication dated 28.06.2016 sent by the Joint Director of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, the appellant made a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis representation dated 26.08.2016 to the fifth respondent, who ultimately, rejected the same, against which, the writ proceedings are pending.

2.5. In the mean while, the appellant came to know that the import export code has been cancelled. However, no order was passed, cancelling or suspending the import export code. Therefore, the appellant approached the respondent authorities in this regard. Finding no response, they have preferred WP.No.383 of 2017, to quash the order of cancellation of their import export code no.0492020779 by the third respondent and for consequential direction.

The aforesaid order of the learned Judge is questioned in this writ appeal.

3.The prime contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondents have cancelled the Import Export Code issued to the appellant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by violating Section 8 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, as per which, a license can be suspended or cancelled only after giving show cause as well as personal hearing, but in the present case, no such show cause notice or personal hearing has been granted to the appellant prior to suspension of the license. Though the learned Judge has taken note of the same, while disposing the writ petition, erred in directing the jurisdictional officer to issue a fresh show cause calling upon the appellant to explain, as to why the Import Export Code issued to them should not be cancelled. The learned counsel further submitted that in the show cause notice issued during the month of November 2013, there was only a proposal under Section 11 (7) of the Act for suspension and not cancellation of the licence. Thus, according to the learned counsel, show cause notice under Section 8 of the Act is mandatory, without which, the department is not justified in either cancelling or superseding the IEC licence issued to the appellant. Therefore, the learned Judge sought to allow this appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Judge as well as the order impugned in the writ petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

6.It is not in dispute that the appellant was issued with import export licence bearing code no.0492020779, besides they had obtained four EPCG authorizations. Since they failed to comply with the export obligation, during the month of November, 2013, they were issued with show cause notice, proposing to levy penalty. In the very same show cause notice issued by the third respondent, there was a proposal made as to why the Import Export Code issued to the appellant should not be suspended under Section 11(7) of the FTDR Act, 1992 as amended during 2010. However, no show cause notice as contemplated under the Act, was issued and no opportunity was provided to the appellant, before suspending the IEC, by the third respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis