9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonal hearing . Therefore, with regard to the second point raised by the writ petitioner also, this Court is convinced that the same Officer, who held the personal hearing ought to have passed the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground also. This Court is of the considered view that it would serve the purpose to set aside the impugned order without expressing any opinion on merits and directing the second respondent to afford a fresh personal hearing, pass orders afresh after taking into account the response and records of the writ petitioner. This Court is informed that Joint Director General of Foreign Trade at Bangalore who will hold the personal hearing and hear the matter afresh is an Officer other than the Officer who issued the SCN dated 15.05.2019 (Shakuntala Naik) and the Officer who passed the order-inoriginal dated 17.05.2019 (Varun Singh) - Petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.19527 of 2019 And W.M.P.No.19016 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan, Mr.S.Baskaran For the Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy Sr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order' for brevity) came to be passed. Though obvious it is made clear that impugned order has been called in question in the instant writ petition. 7. Two main points are urged and they are as follows: a) The time granted to respond to said SCN is too short, this was pointed out/difficulties in responding expressed, but the same were overlooked and in any event the same is in breach of the procedure adumbrated in Section 8 of Foreign Trade Development Act, which deals with suspension of IECs. b) While the writ petitioner appeared before the Officer, who issued said SCN i.e., Ms.Shakuntala Naik, impugned order has been passed by another Officer viz., Mr.Varun Singh. 8. Faced with the above situation, Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned Senior Panel Counsel Central Government, who accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1, sought time to get instructions and make submissions. 9. Mr.P.Rajkumar Jhabakh, learned Junior Standing Counsel (Customs Excise) accepted notice on behalf of second respondent, who in any case is only a formal party as far as challenge to the impugned order is concerned. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rade policy or any other law for the time being in force relating to Central excise or customs or foreign exchange or has committed any other economic offence under any other law for the time being in force as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette; or (b) the Director General or any other officer authorised by him has reason to believe that any person has made an export or import in a manner prejudicial to the trade relations of India with any foreign country or to the interests of other persons engaged in imports or exports or has brought disrepute to the credit or the goods of, or services or technology provided from, the country; or (c) any person who imports or exports specified goods or services or technology, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder or the foreign trade policy, the Director General or any other officer authorised by him may call for the record or any other information from that person and may, after giving to that person a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or cancel the Importer- Exporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e set aside on this ground also. 10. This Court is of the considered view that it would serve the purpose to set aside the impugned order without expressing any opinion on merits and directing the second respondent to afford a fresh personal hearing, pass orders afresh after taking into account the response and records of the writ petitioner. In this regard, there is one other issue that is being raised by the learned counsel for writ petitioner. Adverting to the aforesaid counter affidavit dated 15.07.2019, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that a reading of Paragraphs 14 and 18 brings to light that the Authority has pre-determined the issue as it has been averred that the writ petitioner has decided to hide the entire information and besides saying that the granting of any amount of time could not make any difference. 11. With regard to the aforesaid averments, learned counsel for respondents submits that the same have been made in a particular context. Learned counsel submits that these averments occurring in Paragraphs 14 and 18 of the counter affidavit have to be read as a whole and if read in the context and setting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
