- (1.) JUDGMENT The Court: In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders both dated 22nd December, 2006 passed by the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade on several grounds. The principal grounds are that the principles of natural justice had been violated in passing the impugned order since the complaint received from the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata which formed the basis of the impugned order was not furnished and the orders do not spell out the reasons for imposing penalty. In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of one of the orders which is as under: "1) A notice of even No. dated 23.08.06 was issued to M/s. Megha International, 55/ 1A, Strand Road, 2nd Floor, Room No. 204, Kolkata - 700 006 (hereinafter referred to as the "noticee firm") under sections 8, 9(4), 10 and 11 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, calling upon the noticee firm to show cause as to why DEPB No.0210017793 dated 23.12.2000 should not be cancelled ab-initio under clause 10(a) of Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993 and why their IEC No. 0299019888 & all benefits under EXIM policy should not be suspended and fiscal penalty should not be imposed against them, under sections 8 & 11 the Act for violation of the conditions of EXIM Policy. The noticee was given 15 days time for submission of their reply. The reason for the notice arose on the basis of a complaint received from the Commissioner of Customs (Prev), Kolkata that the firm had deliberately and willfully misdeclared the goods, an exported, as of Indian origin, for availing the benefit of DEPB scheme. Potassium Chloride (MOP) were actually been imported into India from different countries by various agencies and/or importers availing the benefit of concessional rate of customs duty and benefit of huge Govt. subsidy, which were actually meant for the farming community of this country, but passed on to the other countries as exports. The item mentioned in the shipping bill is not the same as in the DEPB Schedule. In fact there is no DEPB for M.O.P. in the DEPB Schedule. 2) The firm did not submit any reply to the notice nor appeared for personal hearing. 3) I have gone through the facts and records of the case carefully, I find that M/s. Megha International, 55/1A, Strand Road, 2nd floor, Room No. 204, Kolkata - 700 006 had obtained the above mentioned DEPB for credit value of Rs.12,62,800/- against export of Potassium Chloride (MOP). 4) Since the firm have transferred the DEPB and in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 read with section 11(2) of the said Act, I hereby impose a penelty of Rs. 12,62,800/- as penalty in addition to Customs Duty & Interest from the date of issue of licence under reference on the firm and their Proprietor so that it acts as a deterrent against their misrepresentation of the firm in future. There is absolutely no doubt that the firm misrepresented in claiming DEPB since they failed to state that the goods are imported have Govt. Subsidy and description is not the same as in DEPB Schedule. The firm failed to establish that exported goods were of Indian origin".
(2.) It may be noted except the quantum of penalty, in the other impugned order the reasons given in its support are similar.
(3.) In the instant case, the petitioner was served with a notice to show cause. The petitioner neither chose to reply nor had intimated whether he was willing to be heard in person. However, that does no ipso facto mean that authority shall pass cryptic orders without citing reasons since they make the grounds for filing an appeal illusory.;