2007 (3) TMI 787 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order dated 28-11-2006 passed by Additional Director General of Foreign Trade under proviso to Section 15 read with Section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
2. Adjudication of appeal filed against the order dated 26-8-2004 passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Ludhiana.
3. Time-barred appeal and failure to make pre-deposit.
4. Disclosure of liability towards the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).
5. Lockout situation resulting in non-production of bicycles for exports.
6. Merit of the argument regarding limitation and waiver of pre-deposit.

Analysis:

1. The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought the quashing of the order dated 28-11-2006 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade under proviso to Section 15 read with Section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The petitioner also requested direction to adjudicate upon the appeal against the order dated 26-8-2004 passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Ludhiana, after being given a full opportunity of hearing.

2. The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade dismissed the appeal citing it as time-barred and due to the petitioner's failure to make a pre-deposit. However, the petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the 45-day period as the order was communicated on 30-8-2004, and the appeal was lodged on 11-10-2004. The petitioner contended that the dismissal was incorrect as the liability towards DGFT was disclosed before the BIFR, and the company was under a lockout since 8-7-2001, impacting bicycle production for exports.

3. The respondent's counsel could not refute the factual statements and arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the appeal was within the limitation period and that a waiver of pre-deposit should have been granted due to the company's manufacturing unit being closed since July 8, 2001.

4. Consequently, the court quashed the order dated 28-11-2006 and directed the Respondent No. 1 to entertain the appeal, considering it within the limitation period and waiving the pre-deposit condition. The court instructed that the appeal should be decided on its merits within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the order, thereby disposing of the writ petition accordingly.