9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Petitioner and Mrs. Shehnaz Bharucha, along with Mr. Vikas Salgia, for the Respondent No.1. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner, in effect, challenges the following:- "1. The present Petition is filed, inter-alia, challenging (i) partial rejection of benefit of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) in respect of goods exported under 26 shipping bills on the ground of alleged mis-match in description of ITC (HS) 87085000; (ii) decision taken by the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) in Case No. 22 filed by the Petitioner at its Meeting held on 22.03.202 and 29.03.2022 and recorded in Minutes of Meeting No. 22/AM22. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin 10 days from the date of uploading of minutes." 8. After the meeting and decision on 14.11.2019, the Petitioner (formerly known as M/s. Spicer India Pvt. Ltd.), heard nothing further in the matter, particularly regarding the PRCs Meeting No. 22/AM22 held on 22.03.2022 and 29.03.2022. However, the record shows that on these dates, the Petitioner's case was taken up for consideration. After recording the background, the PRC took the following decision:- "Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm alongwith the report received from RA, Pune and also comments received from PC-3, Division. The Committee observed that there is no merit in the request of the firm. Accordingly, the Commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trade. She submitted that the Petitioner was denied the benefits under the MEIS for reasons referred to in the affidavit. 13. Mr. Prakash Shah contested the reasoning reflected in the affidavit. He submits that the reasons that are absent in the PRC's decision cannot be provided by the Deputy Director General by filing an affidavit. 14. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties. 15. At the outset, we do not propose to enter into the merits of the controversy because, in this case, we are satisfied that the failure of natural justice vitiates the decision-making process. 16. On 14.11.2019, the PRC, in its Meeting No. 21/AM20, did hear the Petitioner's representative. However, on that date, the PRC only decided to call for a deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This is an additional reason to interfere with the impugned decision. 20. In the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents, significantly, neither is the copy of the RA's report, nor the copies of the comments received from PC-3 Divisions annexed. Based on paragraphs 9 and 18 of the affidavit or, for that matter, other averments in the affidavit, we cannot uphold the impugned decision considering the serious defects in the decision-making process. 21. Therefore, at the outset, we clarify that we are not addressing the merits of the decision but propose to interfere with it because the decision-making process was grossly defective. In this case, the principles of natural justice have been breached, and a case is made to set aside the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
