- (1.) The petitioners with this application challenged a show cause notice and investigation on account of failure to honour export commitment as against the duty free import of certain materials. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee (as His Lordship then was) by His Lordship order dated 18th June, 1995 did not grant any stay of proceedings in relation to show cause notice and allowed to continue with passing of final order, the effect thereof was not to be given until further orders or for a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the aforesaid order whichever was earlier.
(2.) At the same time the petitioners' application for granting extension of time to meet its export obligation under the BECC scheme of License No. P/W 2283368/C/XX/02/35/94, dated 11th January, 1995 was directed to be considered. This application for extension was to be considered within four weeks from the date of the aforesaid order. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 18th June, 1996 the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade with a prior notice dated 9th July, 1996 took up the application for hearing of the application on 15th July, 1996.
(3.) It appears the learned Lawyer on behalf of the writ petitioners on that date, had appeared before the aforesaid Director. It is the case of the petitioners that on that date the learned Lawyer for the petitioners made preliminary submissions and also produced and submitted a sample of the product for export. He explained about the reasons for delay and asked for time to produce necessary documents namely lorry challans showing despatch of input material from Calcutta and to various places in the states of Rajasthan and Gujarat where the manufactures of the finished product carry on business. That apart he wanted to produce the export documents namely copies of the letter of credit and export order. The aforesaid documents could not be produced in view of shortage of time as the notice for hearing was given on 9th July, 1996 and hearing took place on 15th July, 1996. The relevant documents were lying at the registered office of the petitioners at Guwahati whereas the hearing took place at Calcutta. It is further case of the petitioners that the said Director in principle deferred the hearing and allowed the petitioner to produce the documents on the next date of hearing, which was fixed on 31st July, 1996.;