9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed penalty of Rs. 61,76,00,000/- (Rupees sixty one crores and seventy six lakhs only) on the petitioner under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, (herein after referred as FTDR Act), by exercising his power under Section 13 of the FTDR Act. 3. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner was granted permission for establishing a unit in MEPZ-Special Economic Zone for manufacturing Gold Bangles and Pendants vide letter of approval dated 10.06.2008. According to the respondent, the petitioner has exported " Gold Medallions", which is not the product approved in the list of authorised operators in the letter of approval. In terms of condition no.(vi) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2014, thus, it appears that the Corrigendum was issued after a period of four months that too after adjudication of the show cause notice. The petitioner had submitted his reply and when the personal hearing was in progress, in the Corrigendum, the respondent proposed to take action under Section 11 of the FTDR Act instead of Section 13 of the FTDR Act read with Rule 54 of SEZ Rules, 2006, as originally proposed, there was a material shift in the provisions of the Act, which is sought to be applied. Therefore, it is in effect of fresh proceedings, since the Sections of both the provisions of the statutes are different. Therefore, proper procedure of the respondent to quash the show cause notice with a liberty to issue a fresh show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their reply. The petitioner had no such opportunity to submit their reply, hence on this ground alone the impugned order is liable for interference. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the correctness of the submission and gone into the merits of the petitioner's contention, whether the product manufactured by them falls within the letter of approval which was granted and whether the petitioner had commenced production within a period of one year from the date of letter of approval, these issues have to be adjudicated by the authority after affording opportunity to the petitioner. 8.Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
