9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter the order impugned herein was issued. At the end of the day, an exporter was required to fulfil export obligations as a condition for the grant of advance authorisation. The documents on record include the redemption letter, and such redemption letter shows that the export obligation was fulfilled in entirety. In those circumstances, the petitioner must be provided an opportunity to place relevant documents before the 1st respondent. Therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to place all relevant documents before the 1st respondent. Upon consideration thereof, the 1st respondent is dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 93,48,178/- along with interest thereon. In addition, by such order, goods valued at Rs. 2,98,61,214/- were confiscated, subject to payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed. The writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the letter dated 18.02.2019 from the petitioner to the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade requesting the said authority to issue the redemption certificate at an early date. He also pointed out that such redemption letter was eventually issued on 18.11.2020, but that the impugned order was issued in the meantime. Since the petitioner fulfilled the expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In support of these submissions, he relies upon the order passed by this Court on 09.06.2021 in W.P.No.12498 of 2021, M/s.Fuso Glass India Private Limited v. The Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade and another (Fuso Glass) , particularly paragraphs 9 to 12 thereof. In this regard, he submits that the fact situation was nearly identical in that case. 6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that he has nothing to add to the documents already placed on record by the petitioner, including the redemption letter issued on 18.11.2020. 7. In order to substantiate the contention that the export obligation was fulfilled, the petitioner has placed on record redem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the petitioner should have filed an appeal by relying on the earlier order of this Court in Fuso Glass . While he contends that the fact situation in Fuso Glass was nearly identical, it is noticeable from the said order that the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade had not issued a certificate with regard to fulfilment of export obligation in that case, and the petitioner therein was awaiting such certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in Ramsays Corporation . In that case, the appellant had discharged export obligations and produced a redemption certificate as evidence thereof. In those circumstances, the Division Bench held as under in paragra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption notification subject, of course, to the condition that they would produce the essentiality certificate granted by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons at the time of importation of goods. Grant of essentiality certificate was not in the hands of the assessees. It was the function of a department of the Central Government. The essentiality certificate admittedly was not granted by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons within a reasonable time. The importers could not be blamed therefor. It is possible that delay in granting the said essentiality certificate was by way of default on the part of the authorities concerned. .......... 26. The Directorate General of Hydrocarbons is under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018) 9 SCC 1 . Both in the case at hand and in the case dealt with by the Division Bench, the discharge certificate was issued after the impugned order was issued. Thus, the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court is squarely applicable to this case. 9. At the end of the day, an exporter was required to fulfil export obligations as a condition for the grant of advance authorisation. The documents on record include the redemption letter, and such redemption letter shows that the export obligation was fulfilled in entirety. In those circumstances, the petitioner must be provided an opportunity to place relevant documents before the 1st respondent. Therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. 10. Hence, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
