2019 (2) TMI 614 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of Review application - violation of conditions of license in question - Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1962 - Held that - Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1962 would show that the reason stated for not considering the review applications cannot be sustained. This Court is of the view that the review application filed by the petitioner has to be considered by the second respondent on merits and appropriate orders shall be passed accordingly - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Mandamus to direct the second respondent to pass orders on review applications.
2. Interpretation of provisions under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1962 regarding review and appeal processes.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct the second respondent to pass orders on review applications against Orders-in-Original dated 04.08.2011 and 01.10.2012. The petitioner had filed review applications which were not considered, and was informed to file an appeal instead. The petitioner contended that under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1962, review is maintainable before the second respondent. The court noted that the reason for not considering the review applications was not sustainable based on previous court orders. The court directed the second respondent to consider the review applications on merits and in accordance with the law within a specified timeframe.

2. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 15 and 16 of the Act to determine the petitioner's right to file a review. Section 15 deals with the appeal process, specifying the procedure for appealing against decisions or orders made by the Adjudicating Authority. On the other hand, Section 16 pertains to the review process, allowing the Central Government or the Director General to examine the records of any proceeding to ensure correctness, legality, or propriety of a decision or order. The court emphasized that appeal and review are independent of each other, and the petitioner was entitled to file a review without exhausting the appeal remedy. The court held that the rejection of the review petition for not filing an appeal was unsustainable, emphasizing the petitioner's right to seek a review.

In conclusion, the court granted the mandamus sought by the petitioner, directing the second respondent to pass orders on the review applications. The judgment clarified the petitioner's right to file a review under Section 16 of the Act, independent of the appeal process outlined in Section 15. The court's decision emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring that administrative decisions are made in accordance with the law.