9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1297 - HC - CustomsInterpretation of statute - paragraph 3.14.5 of the FTP 2009-2014 - benefit of duty credit scrip (authorization) - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, order dated 09, 10.2018 and communication dated 06.11.2018 are appealable under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 09.10.2018 and communication dated 06.11.2018 are in violation of principles of natural justice. It is to be noted that till date, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 09.10.2018 and communication dated 06.11.2018 by making necessary application for amendment of the writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum questioning the validity of order dated 09.10.2018 and communication dated 06.11.2018.
Issues:
Interpretation of paragraph 3.14.5 of the FTP 2009-2014 for duty credit scrip entitlement and issuance of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: The petitioner sought relief based on the interpretation of paragraph 3.14.5 of the FTP 2009-2014, claiming entitlement to duty credit scrip. The relief included the issuance of duty credit scrip for a specific amount related to incremental growth in exports during a specified period. The Court noted that during the proceedings, the respondents had passed an order and subsequent communication, both of which were appealable under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the violation of principles of natural justice in these orders. However, it was highlighted that the petitioner had not challenged these orders by amending the writ petition. The Court acknowledged the appealable nature of the orders passed by the respondents and the petitioner's failure to challenge them within the legal framework. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the appropriate forum to contest the validity of the orders in question. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition and noting that the time spent in the Court could be considered for condonation of delay by the relevant forum.
|
