TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eview of any decision or order is only under Section 16 - As and when the second respondent had issued the EPCG licence and the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, he becomes functus officio and if at all, such an order of the second respondent is to be reviewed, the same can be done only by the Director General, as provided under Section 16. Apparently, the impugned notice issued by the second respondent itself is without any jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory provisions. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Section 16 empowers the Director General to review the order, within a period of two years from the date of the decision or the order passed. Apparently, all the impugned notices in the aforesaid Writ Petitions are beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Constitution of India. Thus the petitioner would be entitled to succeed on the second ground of limitation also. Petition allowed. - W.P.Nos.21689 to 21696 of 2016 & WMP.Nos.18539 to 18541 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH For Petitioner: Mr. Sujit Ghosh, for Mr. Arun Karthik Mohan For Respondents : Mr. G. Karthikeyan, Additional Solicitor General COMMON ORDER With the consent of both the parties, the present Writ Petitions are heard through Video Conferencing on 18.08.2020. 2. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioner is an Export Promotion and Capital Goods (hereinafter referred to as EPCG ) licence holder, who had imported various capital goods on concessional rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew. 5. Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Solicitor General opposed the above said submissions stating that the limitations of two years under Section 16 will commence from the date of demand notice and not from the issuance of EOD Certificate. With regard to the authority of the second respondent to review his own order under Section 16 is concerned, no counter statements have been made in the common counter affidavit filed by the respondents. He also submitted that the petitioner had given a representation seeking for personal hearing and without availing such hearing, had filed the present Writ Petitions and therefore, the Writ Petitions deserves to be rejected. 6. Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the EPCG licence and the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, he becomes functus officio and if at all, such an order of the second respondent is to be reviewed, the same can be done only by the Director General, as provided under Section 16. Apparently, the impugned notice issued by the second respondent itself is without any jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory provisions. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Alstom India Ltd., Vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (301) E.L.T. 446 (Guj.) on this proposition. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- 31. On going through the provisions of the FTDR Act, we find that those do not grant p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he correctness, legality or propriety of such decision or order and make such orders thereon as may be deemed fit. The proviso. however, says that no decision or order shall be varied under section 16 so as to prejudicially affect any person unless such person has, within a period of two years from the date of such decision or order, received a notice to show cause why such decision or order shall not be varied and has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation, and, if he so desires, of being heard in defence. ... 33.We, thus, find that although specifically prohibited under Section 6 of the Act, the DGFT has been illegally vested with the power to intervene in the subject matters coming within the purview of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on this ground. 12. Insofar as the ground of limitation raised by the petitioner is concerned, Section 16 empowers the Director General to review the order, within a period of two years from the date of the decision or the order passed. Apparently, all the impugned notices in the aforesaid Writ Petitions are beyond the period of two years. As a matter of fact, the notices are after a long delay between 8 to 10 years and there is absolutely no explanation for this inordinate delay in the proposal to review the order. The only ground raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General, is that, the two years period prescribed under Section 16 would commence from the date of the demand notices. I am unable to contemplate as to how such dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
