9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The six (6) months period expired long before - as per paragraph 4.23 of the Hand book of Procedure as in force from 27.08.2009, the petitioner had to satisfy with the requirements of 4.23(b) as in Column II to the above table. It cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The order is detailed. Therefore, a review of the order is impermissible. A review cannot be an appeal in disguise. This Review Application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. - Honourable Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan Senior Counsel For the Respondents : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General Assisted by Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General ORDER The petitioner has filed this Review Application to review order dated 19.09.2022 in W.P.(MD).No.15613 of 2016 on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of record. 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that while concluding that the applications filed by the petitioner for revalidating the Advance Authorizations were belated, the Court has not taken note of the amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2009-2014 with effect fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondents has drawn attention to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and Others , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated its view taken earlier and has ultimately held as under:- 18. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that in the present case while allowing the review application and setting aside the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010 the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction and has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it while exercising the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 144 CPC. From the reasoning given by the High Court, it appears that according to the High Court the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010 was erroneous. While passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has observed and considered the Survey Report dated 12.12.2007 which was already dealt with by the High Court while deciding the main writ petition and the High Court discarded and/or not considered the Surve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ragraph 9.13 of the HOP which states DGFT may, on his own or otherwise, call for records of any case pending with or decided by an officer subordinate to him or an officer of any EPC/FIEO including a Group/ Committee of officers nominated, appointed or authorised by him and pass such orders as he may deem fit is also not relevant. Claim for Exemption from the Policy / Procedure under 2.5 of 2009-14 Policy and later 2.58 of 2015-2020 is without merits. 147. The application was filed on 16.02.2011 for the first time after the extension of two years. Thus, the application was beyond the limitation. Paragraph 9.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy therefore cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. 12. Time for discharging the export application has been discussed in paragraph 150, 151 152 of order dated 19.09.2022 in W.P.(MD).No. 15613 of 2016. They read as follows:- 150. Paragraph 4.22 Handbook of Procedure as it stood before and with effect from 27.08.2009 are reproduced below for a comparison Paragraph 4.22 Handbook of Procedure before 27.08.2009. Paragraph 4.22 Handbook of Procedure with effect 27.08.2009. Export Obligation Period (EO) and its Extension: The period of fulfillment of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27.08.2009 under the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. Paragraph 4.23 Handbook of Procedure with effect from 27.08.2009 under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 Revalidation of Authorisation The Regional Authority may consider a request of the original authorization holder and grant one revalidation for a period of 6 months from the date of expiry of the original authorization. The request(s) for revalidation of authorization shall be made in the form given in Aayaat Niryaat Form Revalidation of Authorisation a) RA may consider a request of Original Authorization holder and grant one revalidation for 6 months from expiry date. Request(s) for revalidation of Authorisation shall be made in ANF 4E . b) In case of revalidation of advance authorization issued prior to 27.08.2009, it should be ensured that VA is maintained at 15% (and as per details mentioned in Paragraph 4.16 of FTP) mentioned in Paragraph 4.16 of the FTP or as stipulated in the Advance Authorization, whichever is higher. However, for Advance Authorizations for products with VA as per Appendix 11B, the VA shall be as per the VA stated in Appendix 11B or as stated in Advance Authorisation, whichever is higher. 130. Reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of expiry of the Original Authorization. The six (6) months period expired long before. 16. Thus, as per paragraph 4.23 of the Hand book of Procedure as in force from 27.08.2009, the petitioner had to satisfy with the requirements of 4.23(b) as in Column II to the above table. 17. Whereas, the request of the petitioner for revalidation was made on 16.02.2011 long after the period of validity of the respective Advance Authorizations expired on 27.03.2009 and 23.04.2009. 18. Thus, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The order is detailed. Therefore, a review of the order is impermissible. A review cannot be an appeal in disguise. 19. That apart, the petitioner has also filed an appeal against the order of this Court and therefore, on this count also the present application filed to review the order on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record cannot be countenanced. The petitioner having filed an appeal should pursue its appellate remedy before the Hon'ble Division Bench. 20. Therefore, this Review Application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
