TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice. The order is virtually unreasoned and even does not take into account that there was medical reason which prevented the petitioner from attending the office and the personal hearing - the matter shall stand restored to the file of the Appellate Committee at New Delhi for re-examination - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Writ Petition No. 2041 of 1997 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2017 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And Prakash. D. Naik, JJ. Mr. Shailesh Naidu with Ms. Kavita Arvind Shah for the petitioner Ms. Neeta V. Masurkar with Mr. Advait M. Sethna for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. This writ petition is pending in this court, after its admission, for a considerable period. The only contention raised before us by the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner being the actual user had obtained two supplementary import licences from the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Import and Export. That power is now vesting in the Director General of Foreign Trade. Both these licences were issued under the category of actual user and the petitioner urged that it was required to import the goods under the said licences to be utilised for manufacturing certain items, namely, metal containers at the factory at Andheri, Mumbai. Under the aforesaid licences, it imported total 515.176 m.t. M. S. defective sheets, cutting and coil of CIF totally amounting to ₹ 17,93,018/-. The details have been set out, according to the petitioner. The import was under various bills of entry for home cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and submitting all the records, it was shocked and surprised to receive a communication alleging that there was no proof submitted. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed that a personal hearing will be held. The petitioner then relies upon the record of such personal hearing/visit and various proofs as and when called for were provided. Though the adjudication was postponed, eventually, the claim of the petitioner is that an exparte order was passed on 31st January, 1996 by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi, whereunder, the petitioner was debarred from importing or receiving goods on import licence for a period of six months and penalty of ₹ 15 lakhs was imposed. This order is at Annexure &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely delaying tactics. On merits, the petitioner has no case. Hence, the petition be dismissed because it is a gross abuse of the process of this court. 11. Since this petition is pending for long time, we have perused the record carefully. What we find is that the petitioner has been relying upon certain documents and equally there is a compilation tendered on the record of this case. 12. The petitioner has throughout been justifying its stand by relying on these documents, some of which carry the endorsement of the respondents themselves. It is, therefore, apparent that it is this court which is called upon to now satisfy itself whether there is a compliance made with the requirement of actual user allegedly. Thus, the alleged requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... linkage of the goods imported, its actual use and consequent sale. Then, there are no convincing reasons for non appearance before the first respondent. That is why a conclusion is reached that the violation of actual user condition is established beyond doubt. Since the petitioner is a small scale unit, the penalty has been brought down. 15. We find that when voluminous documents were relied upon to prove and establish that there is no breach or violation of the alleged condition, then, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority, which is the final fact finding authority, to have gone into the record. It was its bounden duty to have rendered complete finding consistent with the materials on record. It is an appellate authority and ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
