Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 13 - HC - CustomsCancellation of the IEC - EPCG Scheme - levy of penalty - suspension of import export code as per section 11(7) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - no such show cause notice or personal hearing has been granted to the appellant prior to suspension of the license - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- 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. Taking note of the fact that the said show cause notice issued in November, 2013, culminated in an order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the first respondent and thereafter, no further proceedings were initiated against the appellant prior to cancellation of the IEC, the learned Judge while disposing the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the order of cancellation of IEC passed by the third respondent, has correctly directed the jurisdictional officer under the Act, to issue appropriate show cause notice to the appellant, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; further directed the appellant to file a reply within a period of 30 days; and thereafter, directed the jurisdictional officer to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Further, the interest of the appellant was rightly protected by extending the status quo order for a period of 90 days. Writ appeal dismissed.
|