9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olicy for the year 1978-79. It is an accepted position that once an exporter has been registered, the registration shall remain valid for four years unless the exporter registered ceases to exist or his name is deregistered for any reason or he becomes ineligible to hold the certificate. The registration certificate of the petitioners, therefore, would have ordinarily been valid up to 10th October. 1980. 2. During June-October, 1977 the petitioners agreed to export diverse quantities of cast iron pipes to Egypt on behalf of an Indian exporter who had entered into a contract for this purpose with the Egyptian buyer. Specifications for these cast iron pipes to be exported were also agreed upon. The petitioners accordingly, on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentations an order was passed on 3-2-1979 deregisteringthe petitioners and cancelling their registration certificate of 11-10-1976. The Order also states that in view of cancellation of registration certificate, the petitioners will not be able to avail of any of the benefits under export assistance scheme. This order is challenged in this present petition on the ground that no personal hearing was given to the petitioners before an order of deregistration was passed and hence the principles of natural justice have been violated. 5. Paragraph 271 of the Hand Book of Import-Export Procedure, 1978-79 contains a provision for deregistration of exporters. It is an accepted position that similar provision was contained in the relevant Import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice have been violated. It is true that in one of their letters, the Engineering Export Promotion Council had said they would give to the petitioners a personal hearing, which was not done. But looking to the detailed material which was before the Engineering Export Promotion Council and the nature of the explanation of the petitioners, the decision was justified. Giving a personal hearing could not have made any difference to the decision. In these circumstances and looking to the ample material against the petitioners, there is no point in setting aside the decision on the ground that a personal hearing was not given. In every case it is not mandatory that a personal hearing should be given. The petitioners were given an adequate oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
