2019 (10) TMI 380 - HC - Customs

100% EOU - non-implementation of the Letter of Permission - HELD THAT - The learned Single Judge was of the considered opinion that there was no error or perversity in the reasonings assigned by the Original Authority vide Annexure-7D to the writ petition or the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-A while arriving at the conclusion rendered by them. It was also held by the learned Single Judge that no material either produced or demonstrated before the learned Single Judge to conclude contrary to the finding of fact rendered by the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority which confirmed the same. This court find that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge which has confirmed the concurrent finding rendered by the 2nd respondent-Original Authority and as well as the 1st respondent-Appellate Authority in deciding that the withdrawal of Letter of Permission issued in favour of petitioner on 08.10.2007 which appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case - this intra-court appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of cancellation of Letter of Permission for non-fulfillment of conditions under Foreign Trade Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a limited company engaged in manufacturing Cups and Cones for industrial consumption as an Export Oriented Unit, secured a Letter of Permission from the Director General of Foreign Trade. The Letter of Permission, issued in 2007, required the commencement of commercial production within three years. However, as of 2012, the petitioner had not started commercial production, leading to a show cause notice under relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Act. Despite a reply from the petitioner, the delay in implementation remained unsatisfactorily explained.

Subsequently, the Director General of Foreign Trade canceled the Letter of Permission in 2013, citing non-fulfillment of conditions and failure to be deemed as deemed export. A fine and penalty were imposed for non-compliance. The petitioner challenged this order, but it was upheld by the appellate authority and the Single Judge, who found no errors in the decision-making process or the facts presented.

The court affirmed the decisions of the authorities, stating that the withdrawal of the Letter of Permission was just and proper given the circumstances. The court found no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Single Judge, the Original Authority, or the Appellate Authority. As a result, the intra-court appeal was dismissed for lacking material to support interference with the lower courts' decisions.