TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he ordered the suspension in view of the report submitted by the CBI and on going investigations thereof.The above statement of the first respondent in the impugned order lacks any material details and particulars to support the order of suspension. Needless to say that the Licensing Authority, if intends to suspend or cancel the license, should state specific details and particulars as to the reasons which made him to take such action. In the absence of any such finding or reason, such order cannot be sustained. This Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order only on the reason that it does not disclose, reflect or finding for suspending the IEC of the petitioner - Therefore, the matter needs to go back to the first respondent once again for passing a speaking order - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.25693 of 2019 And W.M.P.No.25173 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2019 - Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu For the Petitioner : Mr.Mohan for Mr.S.Baskaran For the Respondents : Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari for R1 and R2 Sr. Panel counsel Mr.S.R.Sundar for R3 ORDER This writ petition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition before this Court in W.P.No.19527 of 2019, challenging the said order dated 17.05.2019. This Court, by order dated 22.07.2019 passed in the above writ petition, set aside the impugned order therein only to facilitate a personal hearing to be held fresh and redoing the order. This Court has also directed that the personal hearing should be held by the first respondent herein and thereafter, he shall pass orders after considering the objections, records. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner gave a written submission in detail on 26.07.2019 before the first respondent. Thereafter, the present impugned order dated 08.08.2019 was passed once again by cancelling the IEC however, by not disclosing any reason for such action. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 and 2. The crux of the contention raised in the counter affidavit is as follows: The proprietor of the petitioner company has got criminal antecedents, since he has violated the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and a criminal case is pending against the petitioner filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel for the respondents, after reiterating the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, submitted that the impugned order is passed by the first respondent after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering their objections. He further submitted that in view of the reasons stated in the show cause notice, the first respondent has rightly suspended the IEC. The learned counsel further contended that in any event, as the appellate remedy is available to the petitioner, they can work out the relief before such Appellate Authority by challenging the order of suspension. 6. Heard both sides. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of suspension of IEC. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was issued with a Certificate of Importer Exporter Code bearing No.0402001630 dated 16.04.2002. 8. Section 8 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, deals with the power of the concerned Authority to suspend or cancel the importer Exporter Code (IEC), which reads as follows: 8.Suspens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trade policy or any other law for the time being in force relating to the Central Excise or customs or foreign exchange or committed any other economic offence under any other law for the time being in force or the Director General or any other Officer authorised by him; where any person has made an import or export in a manner gravely prejudicial to the trade relations of India with any foreign country or to the interests of other persons engaged in imports or exports or has brought disrepute to the credit or the goods of, or services or technology provided from the country; or any person who imports or exports specified goods or services or technology, in contravention of any provision of the said Act. However, it is seen from the above said provision that such suspension or cancellation of IEC can be made , after giving a notice to that person in writing, informing him of the grounds, on which it is proposed to cancel or suspend IEC Code Number and after giving a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time. Thus, it is evident that the suspension or cancellation of the IEC cannot be done without putting the concerned person on not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d actions of the noticee, all the Proprietor/Directors/Partners are also hereby called upon to show causes as to why fiscal penalty should not be imposed on each under Section 11(3) of Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act 1992. They may also, if they so desire, avail the opportunity of personal hearing within time period specified above. 3.3 It may be noted that if no reply is received by the undersigned within above stated time-period, it will be presumed that the Noticee and its Proprietor/Directors/Partners have nothing to say in the matter and the case will be decided ex-parte on merits, on the basis of information already available with this office without any further reference to them. Please note that once the orders are passed, further appeal therein against lies with Zonal Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai. 4.1 This show cause notice is issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the Noticee and its Proprietor/Directors/Partners under the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act 1992 or any other law in force for the time being. (SHAKUNTALA NAIK) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the reason that it does not disclose, reflect or finding for suspending the IEC of the petitioner. Therefore, the matter needs to go back to the first respondent once again for passing a speaking order. 13. No doubt, in the counter affidavit, the respondents raised very many allegations and contentions against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also reiterated the same. It is a settled proposition of law that a counter pleading cannot improve the impugned order. An order should either stand or fall only based on the reasons stated therein and not by substitution of reasons stated in a pleading filed in support of such order. Therefore, I find that the averments made in the counter affidavit cannot be substituted as the reasons for passing the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
