GOKAL CHAND MITAL, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions have been referred to the larger Bench because of (he conflicting orders passed by the two Division Benches of this court, on the question, whether an oral hearing should be given before deciding an application mentioned in Second proviso to Section 4-M of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.

( 2 ) THE Division Bench consisting of S. Ranganathan, and Sunanda Bhandare, JJ. in C. W. P. 2820/87, Shri Amrutlal Ganpatram Panchal vs. Union of India and another, on 25th September, 1987, passed the following order:-

"present: Mr. S. K. Paul with Mr. R. A. Mishra for the petitioner The petitioner s contention is that a personal hearing should have been given before the condition was imposed calling upon the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of 10% of the penalty amount. We do not see any statutory requirement to this effect. The petitioner has made written applications which have been considered and, therefore, there is no failure of natural justice. Dismissed. sd/- S. Ranganathan sd/- Sunanda Bhandare 25th September, 1987"

( 3 ) ON 9th November, 1989, a Division Bench consisting of B. N. Kirpal and C. L. Chaudhary, JJ. ,while noticing the earlier order passed by the Division Bench in Amrutlal Ganpatram Panchal s case (supra), took a different view. The said Division Bench observed that the appellate authority should give an oral hearing before deciding an application mentioned in the Second proviso to Section 4-M of the Import and Export (Control) Act,. 1. 947. The Division Bench further observed that decision of the application has serious consequences on the final outcome of the main appeal. Principles of natural justice would, therefore, require an oral hearing to be granted. The court also observed that "the view which we are taking in conflict with the view expressed by another Division bench in Amrutlal Ganpatrai s case (supra), we are of the opinion that, subject to orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice, this case should be referred to a Full Bench. " On the request of the Division Bench, this larger bench has been constituted to decide the issue.

( 4 ) SINCE the controversy involved in these writ petitions is rather narrow, therefore, only very brief facts are recapitulated. The petitioner obtained advanced licence for import of brass scrap under the Duty Exemption Scheme and this licence was issued subject to the petitioner s exporting 78 MT Brass Artware for approximately FOB value of Rs. 14,00,420. The petitioner ful filled export obligation for the value of about 186%.

( 5 ) ON 10. 6. 1991, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner u/s 4-M of the Import and Export Control Act, based upon a report of investigation, a copy of which was not supplied to the petitioner and the respondent imposed penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs without affording any opportunity to the petitioner.

( 6 ) THE petitioner filed an appeal on 8th February, 1993 along with the application for dispensation of pre-deposit. The petitioner was advised to deposit 25% of the penalty amount. Before taking the said decision on this application, no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner though it was specifically sought. The short question for our determination is, whether the concerned authority was under an obligation to grant oral hearing to the petitioner before deciding the said application?

( 7 ) SECTION 4-M of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 is reproduced below:-

"4m. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order made under this Act may prefer an appeal,- (a) where the decision or order has been made by the Chief Controller or Additional Chief Controller, to the Central Government: (b) where the decision or order has been made by any officer below the rank of the Additional Chief Controller to the Chief Controller or where he so directs, to the Additional Chief Controller, within a period of forty-five days from the date on which the order is served on such person. Provided

Click Here to Read the rest of this document