9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2018 and Mr.N.Rajan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.Nos.2304 & 2305 of 2018 and Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of 4th respondent in W.P.Nos.2304 & 2305 of 2018. 2.Since the issued involved is common and relating to a Textile mill namely, M/s.Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Limited, all the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3.The petitioner applied for import and export licence, which was granted by the second respondent on 04.02.2011. Subsequently the petitioner applied for advance authorisation with duty free facility to import raw materials under the obligation to re-export finished goods. Such advance a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany may be placed under the denied entity list. 5.According to the petitioner, immediately thereafter, in July 2017, they were able to locate a buyer and therefore, approached the respondent department requesting for extension of time to fulfil the obligation of re-export. The petitioner filed W.P.Nos.21634 and 21636 of 2017 challenging two orders passed by the third respondent both dated 29.05.2017 placing the petitioner's company into denied entity list and sought for a consequential relief to direct the first respondent to consider the various representations given by the petitioner and to extend the time granted in the advance authorisation dated 23.08.2012 and 04.07.2012 by another 6 months in order to fulfil the export obligati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered view that the impugned orders in W.P.Nos.2304 and 2305 of 2018 though appear to grant relief to the petitioner have in fact denied the relief. While passing the impugned order, the second respondent has exercised his power and granted extension of time and further made a direction unworkable by stating that the direction will operate from 22.02.2014. Thus, the benefit granted in favour of the petitioner has ended in futility and the impugned order is a paper order, probably with a view to comply with the direction issued by this Court. 7.Mr.N.Rajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel would vehemently contend that if the court is of the view that the extension should have been prospective, then the matter should be remanded to the second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier writ petition, has not referred to the case numbers and not taken note of the order in its entirety. The court specifically directed that no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner. That would mean that the petitioner's business activities should not have been hampered and their names should not have been retained in the denied entity list. Therefore, the second respondent ought to have complied with the said direction and removed the petitioner's name from the denied entity list. Thus, when the same has not been done, the impugned order dated 16.11.2017 calls for interference. 12.For all the above reasons, W.P.Nos. 2304 and 2305 of 2018 are partly allowed and the impugned order dated 19.01.2018 is set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
