2009 (1) TMI 123 - HC - Customs

Letter for withdrawl of redemption letter, which was granted to assessee for fulfillment of export obligation in full petitioner contend that copy of this withdrawl letter was not served on them and also the letter is unreasoned - Jt. Director General of Foreign Trade in his affidavit in reply has stated that letter is issued inadvertently through oversight held that, In any case, the reasons for the said withdrawal cannot be furnished by way of an affidavit in reply- respondents are directed to give a hearing to the petitioner regarding the fulfilment of the export obligation and pass a fresh order

Summary

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of redemption letter dated 11-1-2008 without serving a copy on the petitioner.
2. Lack of cogent reasons for the withdrawal of the redemption letter.
3. Direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner regarding the fulfilment of export obligation.
4. Clarification that the court did not touch the merits of the case, allowing the respondents to pass an appropriate order independently.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a company manufacturing sugar and related products, sought relief regarding the withdrawal of a redemption letter dated 11-1-2008 without receiving a copy of the letter. The court noted that the petitioner learned about the withdrawal from their bankers, emphasizing the lack of direct communication. The respondents had withdrawn the redemption letter through a subsequent letter dated 22-1-2008, causing grievance to the petitioner.

2. The withdrawal of the redemption letter was challenged on various grounds, including being unreasoned and the absence of service of the letter on the petitioner. The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade acknowledged the withdrawal as an oversight in an affidavit. However, the court found the reasons provided unsatisfactory and emphasized that such reasons cannot be adequately addressed through an affidavit. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to conduct a fresh hearing with the petitioner on the export obligation fulfillment and issue a new order within six weeks.

3. The court's decision was based on the need for a fair hearing and proper consideration of the export obligation fulfillment issue, emphasizing the importance of due process. By providing a specific timeline for the fresh order, the court ensured a timely resolution while maintaining procedural fairness. The direction aimed to rectify the lack of communication and reasoning in the withdrawal process, highlighting the significance of transparency and procedural regularity in such matters.

4. Importantly, the court clarified that its directive did not delve into the merits of the case, allowing the respondents to independently evaluate and decide on the matter based on its legal and factual aspects. This clarification preserved the autonomy of the respondents in making a decision while ensuring that procedural fairness and due process were upheld throughout the resolution process. The court disposed of the writ petition without imposing any costs, indicating a balanced approach to the resolution of the dispute.