2017 (9) TMI 685

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of the Importer-Exporter Code Numbers have been suspended by the respondent, as, some adverse remark reports have been received against the petitioners. 3. The petitioners challenged the impugned orders, by contending that, it is wholly in violation of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992. Pending disposal of the Writ Petitions, the petitioners sought for an order of interim injunction, and the Court passed a detailed interim order, dated 30.06.2006 whcih reads as follows :- " In all these Petitions, the petitioners have obtained the importer-exporter code Numbers from the respondent. By the impugned orders, the code numbers were suspended on the ground that the respondent received some adverse report against the peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ferred on the Director General to suspend the code numbers. However, before any order is passed , the person who is likely to be affected should be informed by notice in writing on the ground on which it is proposed to suspend or cancel the importer-exporter code numbers and also should be given a reasonable opportunity for making a representation in writing. There is no dispute that before the impugned orders are passed, the petitioners were not given the opportunity as contemplated in the above paragraph. 3. Mr. Patty B.Jagannathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has produced before the Court a communication received from the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade and contended that the order of suspension was made as the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es or violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act by the petitioners. With the above direction, the WPMPs are closed." 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners does not have any information as to what transpired after the above interm order, wheather any enquiry was conducted or investigation was completed. In any event, the impugned order remain stayed. For all these years, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/Department, and therefore, the impugned order cannot be given effect to at this juncture, having been kept in abeyance from 2006. However, it is open to the respondent to proceed with the investigation, if the same is still pending. 5. With the above observation, the Writ Petitions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X