TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were permitted to make imports under OGL Licence and receiving import licences and customs clearance permits and allotment of imported material from State Trading Corporation (STC) and Minerals Metals Trading Corporation (MMTC) or any other similar agency for the period from 10th November, 1987 to 31st March, 1990 to the extent of 80% of their entitlement. Thus, the entitlement of the Petitioners to import raw material was curtailed by 20% for the period 10-11-1987 to 31-3-1990. 2.The facts brought on record reveal that the show cause notice dated 18-8-1986, which came to be issued under clause 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 proposing to take penal action against the Petitioner under clause 8(g) thereof, was based on the premise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the person who was not earlier entitled to import wood pulp, prior to the introduction of the system of Open General Licence (OGL) in 1980, was permitted to freely import wood pulp after 1980; subject to his only being an Actual User; but, the persons like Petitioners, registered as an Actual Users were barred from importing wood pulp after 1980 due to the purported condition. That once the scheme of OGL was introduced, it equally applied to all Actual Users of the wood pulp so long as they were registered with the sponsoring authority. In this view of the submissions, the contention canvassed and urged is that interpretation adopted by the Respondent had the effect of discriminating against the Petitioners and treating other similarly pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents in their counter affidavit. 9.In order to find the strength of this submission, one has to turn to the impugned order, wherein: intrinsic clinching evidence is to be found to support the contention of the Petitioners in this behalf. It is mentioned in the impugned order (Paragraph 12) that personal hearing was fixed on 12th May, 1987. Accordingly, the matter was heard. Paragraph 13 of the impugned order further makes it clear that the Respondent No. 1 vide its D.O. letter dated 12-5-1987, had requested the DGTD to clarify whether registration of the unit of the Petitioners with them for availing OGL facility had the affect of superseding the condition; providing for necessity of taking prior permission incorporated in the letter da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71). 12.In order to confirm natural justice, the decision maker must not act on the material coming on record subsequent to the stage of hearing or after oral hearing, which the other side has not seen and had no chance to comment on it. It is an elementary rule of principles of natural justice, that party must be given a fair opportunity to collect and controvert any relevant material brought forward to his prejudice. It is needless to mention that the breach of principles of natural justice constitutes breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Ors. v. Ex-Constable Amrik Singh (A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 564). Thus, considering the clear breach of principles of natural justice, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
