9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is strenuously contested by the petitioner.
As noticed in the present case, despite the impugned SCN remaining unadjudicated for decades, the cancellation order / letter dated 07.08.2019 was issued, which effectively condemned the petitioner unheard.
Conclusion - i) The non-adjudication of the SCN for nearly two decades is a valid ground for setting it aside. ii) The cancellation of the DEPB licenses without affording the petitioner a hearing violated principles of natural justice, rendering the cancellation invalid. iii) The issuance of DEPB Scrip cancellation letters without adjudicating the SCN is procedurally flawed, leading to their invalidation.
The impugned SCN, the communication dated 07.08.2019 and the 38 DEPB Scrip Cancellation letters referred to in the impugned cancellation order/ letter dated 07.08.2019, addressed to Commissioner of Customs Department (Preventive) by the Foreign Trade Development Officer, are set aside - Petition allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant documents which form the basis of the impugned SCN be supplied to it. The petitioner also participated in the personal hearing that was scheduled pursuant to the impugned SCN. While reiterating its request for supply of relevant documents, various correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent after issuance of the impugned SCN and the hearing held in respect thereof. 8. When the petition came up for hearing on 19.12.2024, this Court, taking note of the background of the present petition expressed the view that non- adjudication of the show cause for decades was, by itself, a valid ground to set the same aside. The relevant observations in the order dated 19.12.2024 read as under:- "2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 2nd May, 2005 issued by the office of Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, which allegedly has not been adjudicated till date. 3. In the opinion of the Court, if a show cause notice is not adjudicated even after two decades after its issuance, that itself is a good ground to set it aside. The Respondents have no convincing exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has been cancelled on 25.07.2019 due to : DEPB NO. 0510073656 DT. 05.11.2002. HAS BEEN CANCELLED WITH THE APPROVAL OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY ON FILE, ON THE BASIS OF DRI, KOLKATA LETTER NO. DRI. S.N. VIII (6)8/EXP/P&IWB/03/661 DT. 18.03.2005. Scheme: DEPB-Post Export Authorisation No.: 0510073656 dated 26.11.2002 Your's faithfully (Chaman Lal) Foreign Trade Development Officer Place: New Delhi Date: 25.07.2019 (Issued from file: 05/28/051/00316/AM03/ Date: 20.11.2002)" 12. The 38 DEPB Scrip Cancellation letters are in respect of the same DEPB Scrips which were subject matter of the impugned SCN which remains unadjudicated till date. As noticed in the order dated 28.01.2025, the non-adjudication of the impugned SCN was conceded by the concerned Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, who was present in Court on the said date. 13. It is also apparent that the cancellation order/letter dated 07.08.2019 was passed without any prior intimation/notice to the petitioner and almost 15 years after the impugned SCN was initially issued. The basis for issuance of the 38 DEPB Scrip cancellation letters has been set out in the impugned SCN. The factual premise of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciple would apply equally to cases falling either under the Customs Act, the 1994 Act or the CGST Act. 86. When we revert to the facts that obtain in this batch, we find that the respondents have clearly failed to establish the existence of an insurmountable constraint which operated and which could be acknowledged in law as impeding their power to conclude pending adjudications. In fact, and to the contrary, the frequent placement of matters in the call book, the retrieval of matters therefrom and transfer all over again not only defies logic it is also demonstrative of due application of mind quite apart from the said procedure having been found by us to be contrary to the procedure contemplated by Section 28. The respondents have, in this regard, failed to abide by the directives of the Board itself which had contemplated affected parties being placed on notice, a periodic review being undertaken and the proceedings having been lingered unnecessarily with no plausible explanation. The inaction and the state of inertia which prevailed thus leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the respondents clearly failed to discharge their obligation within a reasonable time. The issuan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
