9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of import/manufacture and export of spices, oleoresins, spices oil, etc., obtained Authorisation for importing 20 Metric Tons of light black pepper as per order dated 5-8-2009 of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade and another 20 Metric Tons as per Authorisation dated 25-9-2009. As per the conditions stipulated under the Authorization, the petitioner was under obligation to export black pepper oleoresins and black pepper oil manufactured out of the imported pepper within a period of four months from the date of such import. According to the petitioner, they have exported black pepper oil within the specified time as contemplated under the Advance Authorization. However, black pepper oleoresins could be exported only in a phased mann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or export and they were unable to export oleoresins only on account of the fact that the buyer delayed shipment. 5. The petitioner therefore challenged the orders passed by the Committee failing to grant relaxation as sought for. During the pendency of the above writ petitions, DGFT passed an order placing the petitioner and its Directors under Denied Entities List (DEL), by virtue of which the Authorization is not to be granted until the Export Obligation is met. Ext. P10 is the order dated 26-5-2016 for not complying with the Export Obligation as stipulated in Authorization dated 5-8-2009. A similar order had been passed with reference to the non-compliance of the Authorization dated 25-9-2009. Ext.P12 is the said order dated 26-5-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no dispute about the statutory obligation vested with the petitioner in regard to the Export Obligation to be met. There is also no dispute about the fact that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in exporting the goods in respect of the two Authorizations that had been issued in their favour. The only question is whether the Committee has considered the claim for relaxation in a proper perspective or not. 11. In WP (C) No. 5752/2016, Ext. P3 is the decision of the Committee. The Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that no new facts are brought on record. The matter was taken before the Chairman, Grievance Redressal Committee wherein the issue was considered as per Ext. P5. It is observed by the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period to comply with the Export Obligation and the time can be extended if there is genuine hardship being caused. Merely for the reason that the buyer had delayed the shipment cannot be a genuine reason at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a letter issued by the Spices Board indicating that the petitioner had not indulged in any domestic trading whereas the entire material was made ready for shipment. When the Committee have already taken appropriate decision in the matter, it may not be worthwhile for this Court to reconsider the same by exercising power of judicial review. It is not in dispute that if there is non-compliance of Export Obligation, the DGFT has the power to place the petitioner and its Direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
