9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1191 - HC - CustomsSeeking review of order - error apparent on the face of record or not - petitioner submits that while concluding that the applications filed by the petitioner for revalidating the Advance Authorizations were belated, the Court has not taken note of the amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2009-2014 with effect from 27.08.2009 - HELD THAT - The revalidation of the Advance Authorization can be made only for a period of six (6) months from the date expiry of the Original Authorization. The application could be made in time before the expiry of the period. However, revalidation can be made only for a period of six (6) months from the date of expiry of the Original Authorization. The six (6) months period expired long before - as per paragraph 4.23 of the Hand book of Procedure as in force from 27.08.2009, the petitioner had to satisfy with the requirements of 4.23(b) as in Column II to the above table. It cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The order is detailed. Therefore, a review of the order is impermissible. A review cannot be an appeal in disguise. This Review Application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Error apparent on the face of the record. 2. Applicability of amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy. 3. Jurisdiction and scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of CPC. 4. Timeliness and validity of applications for revalidation of Advance Authorizations. Summary: 1. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: The petitioner filed a Review Application to review the order dated 19.09.2022 in W.P.(MD).No.15613 of 2016, arguing that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner contended that the Court failed to consider amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2009-2014, effective from 27.08.2009, as amended by Public Notice No. 45(RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 07.08.2008. 2. Applicability of Amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy: The petitioner argued that if the amendment to paragraph 9.3 of the Handbook of Procedures to the Foreign Trade Policy had been considered, the Court's conclusion would have been different. Paragraph 9.3 allowed for late applications with a penalty, which the petitioner believed should have been applied to their case. 3. Jurisdiction and Scope of Review: The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the Review Application was essentially an appeal in disguise, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of CPC. The respondents cited a recent Supreme Court decision (S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185) to support their argument that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in a similar case. 4. Timeliness and Validity of Applications for Revalidation: The Court noted that the amendments to the Handbook of Procedures were already considered in the original order dated 19.09.2022. The petitioner's application for revalidation was filed long after the validity period of the respective Advance Authorizations had expired. The Court reiterated that revalidation could only be granted for six months from the date of expiry of the original authorization, and the petitioner's application was filed well beyond this period. Conclusion: The Court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and that the detailed order did not warrant a review. The Review Application was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to pursue their appellate remedy before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed, with no cost awarded.
|
