9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... country and as such also been enjoying certain benefits given by the Government of India under the Import and Export Policy of the country. 3. Respondent No.2 is the Appellate Committee constituted under Section 4M of the Import Export (Control) Act, 1947 r/w. Section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1992'). Respondent No.3 is the Directorate General of Foreign Trade appointed by the Central Government under section 10 of the Act of 1992. Respondent No.4 is an officer employed with the office of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and carries on functions and discharges duties under the supervision and directions of respondent No.3. 4. The petitioner No.1 being an export house had obtained additional licence (hereinafter referred to as the main additional licence) No.0457854 dated 25.9.1981 for CIF Value of Rs. 1,02,41,700/- from the Office of the Joint Chief Controller, Import and Export, Bombay. The main additional licence was valid for a period of 12 months from the date of the said licence. 5. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports issued a Show Cause Notice dated 17.2.1986 to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in additional licence to the said M/s. A.P. Trading Company as alleged in the said show cause notice. 7. Petitioner No.1 by its further letter dated 7.2.1987 addressed to the Deputy Chief Controller of Import and Export also furnished a statement showing the details of the imports and exports affected by it in the main additional licences. This in order to demonstrate that M/s. A.P. Trading Company did not figure in the list of actual users in whose favour the letter of authority was issued. 8. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports by an order dated 31.7.1987 debarred petitioner No.1 with effect from the date of the said order from importing goods or receiving import licences or allotment of import goods through STC, MMTC and other similar agencies for two licencing periods to the extent of 25% of petitioner No.1's entitlement. In the said order it is specifically observed that one of the reason for passing of the aforesaid order was that as Amoxyciline Trihydrate had been shifted to a canalised list w.e.f. 16.10.1981 vide Public Notice dated 16.10.1981 and as such the said item could not have been imported under O.G.L. after 30.1.1982. In the instant case as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be withdrawn. 13. Thereafter petitioner No.1 on 22.11.1995 through its Advocate submitted a detailed written submission in furtherance of the arguments which were advanced at the time of personal hearing. The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade by the impugned order dated 13.12.1996 imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 Lakhs on petitioner No.1. 14. Being aggrieved by the oder dated 13.12.1996, petitioner No.1 filed an Appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 dismissed the Appeal by order dated 21.7.1998. In furtherance of the dismissal of the Appeal the respondent No.4 issued a recovery notice dated 6.8.1998 calling upon petitioner No.1 to pay sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs within a period of 20 days from the date of the receipt of the said recovery notice. 15. The respondents filed an affidavit in reply in response to this petition duly affirmed by Shri A.S. Shinde, Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade. The affidavit in reply supported the impugned orders challenged in this petition. Briefly it is the stand of the respondents, that it came to the notice of the Customs Authorities that petitioner No.1 had issued a letter of authority in the name of M/s. A.P. Trading Company, Bomb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. A.P. Trading Company. It is the petitioner No.1's case that it had given the licence to M/s. Veena Commercial Corporation. We do not find any material on record to show that the petitioner No.1 had issued letter of authority in favour of M/s. A.P. Trading Company. The penalty has been imposed on the petitioner No.1 on the ground that the petitioner No.1 is primarily responsible for the proper utilization of the licence issued to them. From the impugned order it is revealed that the request for re-validation and for issue of subsidiary licence was made by letter of authority holder. Amoxyciline Trihydrate which was a canalized item at that point of time was imported. The same was imported by the letter of authority holder. There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner No.1 has any concern with the import of the canalized item. It is also not the case of the respondents that the request for re-validation and issue of subsidiary licence was made by the petitioner No.1. In fact such a request, even according to the respondents was made by the letter of authority holder. No doubt Amoxyciline Trihydrate was a canalized item at that point of time. However there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
