2009 (11) TMI 458 - HC - Customs

Advance licence The appellant contended that the original authority had refused to grant licence only on the ground of violation of clause (b) of sub rule (1) of Rule 7 and since that was found to be unsustainable by the appellate authority, the matter should have ended there and a direction ought to have been given to the original authority to grant the licence. Held that the contention of the appellant was not accepted. As appellate authority had observed that violation of Rule 7(1)(a) also made by assessee. No reason to interfere in order of Single Judge in remanding the matter.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of advance license under the Duty Exemption Scheme.
2. Rejection of license application under Rule 7(1)(b) of the Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993.
3. Appeal process and observations by the appellate authority.
4. Judicial review of the appellate authority's decision.
5. Authority responsible for granting or refusing licenses under the Rules.

Analysis:

The case involves a writ appeal challenging the order of a learned single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and export of pharmaceutical products. The company's application for an advance license under the Duty Exemption Scheme was rejected by the Regional Director General of Foreign Trade under Rule 7(1)(b) of the Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993. Subsequently, the Additional Directorate General of Foreign Trade also rejected the company's appeal. The learned single Judge set aside the appellate authority's decision, remitted the proceedings to the original authority for a fresh decision, and emphasized that the original authority alone should have considered the matter again. The appellants contended that since the appellate authority found the refusal of the license under Rule 7(1)(b) unsustainable, the original authority should have been directed to grant the license. However, the appellate authority noted a violation of clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 by the company, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court agreed with the learned single Judge that the original authority is the appropriate body to decide on license applications. The Court found no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge as the order of remand did not warrant any intervention in the appeal. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the learned single Judge and emphasizing the role of the original authority in granting or refusing licenses under the Rules.