2001 (9) TMI 619 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Appellate Committee, Ministry of Commerce; Failure to fulfill export obligation within stipulated time and value addition; Imposition of fine; Violation of principles of natural justice; Lack of reasons in the impugned order; Ex parte proceedings; Non-appearance of petitioner despite service; Counsel's request for adjournment; Alleged violation of natural justice principles.

Issue 1: Challenge to order of Appellate Committee
The writ petition contested the order of the Appellate Committee, Ministry of Commerce, dated 3rd August, 1999, which upheld an order by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade. The petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked reasons and should be set aside. The original order was based on the petitioner's failure to meet export obligations and value addition requirements.

Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justice
The petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice principles, claiming they were not heard during the proceedings. The respondent contended that the order contained reasons for the penalty imposed, citing a Supreme Court decision that reasons in an order of affirmation are not mandatory. The petitioner relied on judgments requiring reasons for decisions, but the court found the original order provided reasons, and the appellate order contained brief reasons.

Issue 3: Ex parte proceedings and non-appearance
The respondent found that the petitioner did not appear despite multiple attempts at service. The court noted the petitioner's Counsel had requested an adjournment due to personal reasons, but the petitioner still did not attend. The petitioner's claim of attending previous hearings was contradicted by their Counsel's letter, admitting non-appearance. The court held that the Counsel's duty to ascertain the next hearing date and appear, absence of which did not violate natural justice principles.

Issue 4: Alleged violation of natural justice principles
The petitioner contended a violation of natural justice, arguing the impugned order was invalid. The court found that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, as confirmed by the Counsel's actions, and the absence of the petitioner despite being represented did not amount to a breach of natural justice. The court emphasized that findings of fact regarding service and non-appearance were not subject to review in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the challenges raised by the petitioner. The judgment highlighted that the impugned order was not contrary to the Constitution, arbitrary, or unreasonable. The dismissal order was deferred for six weeks at the request of the petitioner's Counsel.