The court emphasized the importance of providing the petitioner with the opportunity to respond and be heard before a final decision is made, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition challenges the order dated 21st December 2018 (wrongly mentioned as 21st December 2019), passed by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India, by which the Petitioner was placed in the Denied Entity List (hereinafter, DEL ), under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.

3. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said order dated 21st December 2018 was served upon the Petitioner along with the show-cause notice dated 22nd April 2019. He submits that immediately after having being served with the show-cause notice and the said order, the Petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereinafter, "DGFT") on 2nd May 2019, seeking supply of certain documents relied upon in the show-cause notice. The Petitioner also sought for a personal hearing in the matter.

4. This request has been reiterated from time to time i.e., on 6th May 2019 and on 17th November 2020. On 2nd March 2021, an interim reply has also been served upon the DGFT, again giving certain submissions on behalf of the Petitioner, as also seeking the material relied upon in the showcause notice. The grievance of the Petitioner in this petition is that the material, on the basis of which the show-cause notice and the said impugned order were issued, has not been supplied and no reply has been received to these representations as also the interim reply to the show-cause notice given by the Petitioner.

5. Mr. Vineet Malhotra, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent, submits that the Petitioner ought to have ideally filed an appeal against the order dated 21st December 2018, under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.

6. Heard ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the order dated 21st December 2018 shows that the authorities have called upon the Petitioner as under:

"Vide DRI F. No. DRI/IIQ-CI /50D/Enq-23/2018 letter, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has requested this office that in the interest of government revenue, post export benefits under Chapter 3 to your company be disallowed till finalization of investigation by the DRI.

Therefore, in exercise of the power under Section 9(2) of FTDR Act , 1993 (as amended) read with Section 7.1(a), 7(1)(c), 7(1)(i) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation ) Rules , 1993 and DEL circular dated 31.12.2003 of DGFT , M/S C.L. International , 43/41, West Punjabi Bagh , New Delhi , ( IEC No. 0594060338) is placed under DEL and all their pending/future applications for any benefits/authorizations from this office/any other offices of DGFT under the Foreign Trade Policy /Procedures 2015-20 shall be refused . If no reply is received from the firm within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order than it shall be presumed that firm has nothing to say in this regards and further action shall be taken against the Firm/company as per the provisions of FTDR Act and rules in force."

8. It is not in dispute that the said order was served upon the Petitioner along with a show-cause notice dated 22nd April 2019. In the said showcause notice, the Petitioner was called upon to reply as under:

"6. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 13 and 17 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended from time to time. I hereby call upon you to show cause by 30.04.2019 as to why

(a) Your company's name should not continue to be placed in Denied Entity List (DEL) so that benefit under Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) are stopped including future refused of Authorization/Scrip under Rule 7(1)(K) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, as amended from time to tie and

(b) Your IEC should not be suspended under Section 8 for violation of Rule 7.1 (K) of the FTDR Act, 1992 as amended in 2010"

9. A perusal of both these documents clearly