IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ.
M/s. Discite Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Director General Of Foreign Trade & Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 15197 of 2022 & CM APPL. 50563 of 2022, 50565 of 2022
Decided on : 11-01-2023
Suspension of Importer Exporter Code - Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 - Section 8
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the suspension of its Importer Exporter Code (IEC) by the respondents, alleging violation of Section 8 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act). The petitioner contended that the suspension was done without following the required procedure under Section 8.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the suspension of the IEC was not in accordance with the procedure mandated by Section 8 of the FTDR Act. The court set aside the suspension order and directed the restoration of the petitioner's IEC. The court also directed the petitioner to respond to a subsequent show cause notice within two weeks, reserving all rights and contentions.
Issues: Violation of Section 8 of the FTDR Act in the suspension of Importer Exporter Code
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension of the petitioner's IEC did not adhere to the procedure outlined in Section 8 of the FTDR Act, which requires issuance of a show cause notice with grounds for proposed action and affording the concerned party a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the suspension order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to respond to a subsequent show cause notice within two weeks, reserving all rights and contentions.
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter-alia, impugning an action of the respondents suspending the petitioner’s Importer Exporter Code “bearing No. AAGCD26981”.
2. The petitioner states that its Importer Exporter Code (hereafter ‘IEC’) was suspended in violation of Section 8 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereafter “the FTDR Act”).
3. It is the petitioner’s case that Section 8 of the FTDR Act requires the Director General of Foreign Trade (hereafter “DGFT”) or any other officer authorized by him to give a notice in writing, informing the concerned importer/exporter that it intends to suspend or cancel his IEC, and the grounds on which such an action is proposed. The concerned importer/exporter is required to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make a representation in writing before any such action is taken.
4. The petitioner states that DGFT had not issued any show cause notice as required under Section 8 of the FTDR Act. Further, it had not communicated any grounds for proposing to suspend the petitioner’s IEC. The DGFT has also not passed any speaking order for suspending the IEC.
5. DGFT has filed a counter affidavit countering the aforesaid submissions. According to the DGFT, it has issued a show cause notice dated 11.05.2022 and had also issued a reminder dated 06.06.2022, giving full opportunity to the petitioner to show cause as to why its IEC not be cancelled. The petitioner’s IEC was suspended by an order dated 31.08.2022.
6. Section 8 of the FTDR Act is set out below:
(a) any person has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder or the foreign trade policy or any other law for the time being in force relating to Central excise or customs or foreign exchange or has committed any other economic offence under any other law for the time being in force as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette; or
(b) the Director General or any other officer authorized by him has reason to believe that any person has made an export or import in a manner prejudicial to the trade relations of India with any foreign country or to the interests of other persons engaged in imports or exports or has brought disrepute to the credit or the goods of, or services or technology provided from, the country; or
(c) any person who imports or exports specified goods or services or technology, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder or the foreign trade policy, the Director General or any other officer authorized by him may call for the record or any other information from that person and may, after giving to that person a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or cancel the Importer-exporter Code Number and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice and, if that person so desires, of being heard, suspend for a period, as may be specified in the order, or cancel the Importer-exporter Code Number granted to that person.]
(2) Where any Importer-exporter Code Number granted to a person has been suspended or cancelled under sub-section (1), that person shall not be entitled to [import or export any goods or services or technology] except under a special license, granted, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, by the Director-General to that person.”
7. A plain reading of Section 8 of the FTDR Act indicates that the DGFT or any officer authorised by him can cancel or suspend of the IEC of any person if any of the circumstances as specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 8(1) of the FTDR Act exist or any of the conditions set out therein are satisfied. Section 8(1) of FTDR Act makes it mandatory that a show cause no
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Trade Notice cannot be issued to amend a Notification under the FTDR Act, and any amendment must be made in accordance with the statutory pr....
The main legal point established is that a Trade Notice cannot amend a notification issued under Section 3 of the FTDR Act without following the statutory procedure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of following due process, including issuing a show cause notice under Section 14, before directing suspension of the FCRA certificate....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules must be based on tangible material and reasons to believe that the con....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard before cancelling a licence and the necessity for the show-cause notice to spec....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.