9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the goods exported. The petitioners also obtained the benefit of the Simplified Payment Scheme (SPS) which was introduced in June 1976. 2. On 14th February 1983 a firm M/s. K.B. Shingote Co. was debarred from receiving export licences for exporting any goods for 10 licencing periods during 1st April 1983 to 31st March 1992. This firm had partners who were also the directors of the petitioners-company. On the 20th September 1983, the Controller of Imports Exports sought to cancel the SPS enrolment of the petitioner on the ground that the directors of the petitioners-company who were partners of the firm K.B. Shingote Co. have been debarred from receiving licences under the Import policy. However, by the very communication, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctober 1987 allowed the appeal, set aside the summary rejection of the petition, issued a rule and expedited the hearing of the petition. It is, in these circumstances, that the petition has been taken up by me for hearing and final disposal. 3. Shri Bulchandani, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the petitioners submitted that there was no justification in taking the impugned action against the petitioners-company. According to him, on the showing of the department, the provisions of Clause 6(i) (d) and 6(i) (dd) of the Imports Control Order, 1955 was not applied to the petitioners. Hence, no action could be taken against the petitioners-company on the ground that it had on its board directors against whom action had been taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f cash assistance under the normal scheme? The petitioners company is a distinct legal entity. If one refers to the communication dated 19th March 1985 addressed by the Assistant Chief Controller to the petitioners, it is clear that the debarred order has been issued against the firm M/s. K.B. Shingote Co. and its partners. It clarifies that if there is any other firm and other partners which are not covered by debarring order, the question of issuing any clarification does not arise as there is no practice of entering into correspondence with any firm which is not subject to any action under the penal provisions of the Imports (Control) Order. The petitioners were therefore advised to approach the section where their request was pending. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case, the department chose not to contest the Writ Petition No. 2423 of 1985 one fails to see why the same course was not followed in the present case. Hence, the impugned action refusing the petitioner the benefits under the Simplified Payment Scheme for the period 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1985 will have to be quashed. 5. Shri Shringarpure, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents sought to resist the petition by contending that the petitioner has chosen to prefer their First Appeal dated 27th June 1984 which was dismissed on 24th October 1984. The petitioners had been informed that it was open to them to prefer a second appeal to the Chief Controller of Imports Exports. No such appeal was preferred. The prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
