INDO TECH TRANSFORMERS LTD. Vs. JT. DGFT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent herein in Import Export Code No. 0488011868, quash the impugned order dated 4-4-2012 cancelling the petitioner's Import Export Code No. 0488011868 and direct the first respondent to consider the rectification request of the petitioner dated 21-10-2005 and 14-3-2006.

(2.) The petitioner company has obtained a Special Import Licence bearing No. 410009594, dated 13-10-2000 from the first respondent for supply of 805 numbers 100 KVA transformers as deemed Exports to M/s. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Haryana. The petitioner company has utilized the said licence and availed duty exemption for the inputs sourced for the manufacture of the said transformers. With great surprise to the petitioners, the first respondent has issued show cause notice for non-fulfilment of export obligation within the export obligation period and in pursuance of the said notice, the first respondent passed an order dated 17-10-2005. Later the petitioner has submitted the proof of fulfilment of their export obligation vide letter dated 21-10-2005 and 14-3-2006 along with necessary enclosures for cancellation of the obligation. Subsequently, the Clearing Agent of the petitioner informed that the Import Export Code No. 0488011868 was cancelled and unable to process the Bill of Entry to the petitioner-company. Immediately, the petitioner has approached the first respondent requesting him to lift the ban and has also made representation to the Grievance Committee on 17-4-2012. Subsequently, the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 4-4-2012 cancelling the petitioner's Import Export Code No. 0488011868. But the same was not served on the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order was passed by the first respondent without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the copy of the said order is not served on them and through internet only the petitioner knew about the order. Therefore, the order of cancellation passed by the first respondent is not in accordance with law and the same has to be quashed.