The court emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and Foreign Trade Rules 1993, and upheld the principles of natural justice.

Writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the impugned Proceedings of the third respondent dated 27. 2008(W.P.No.20955/2008) and 27. 2008(W.P.20957 and 20958/2008).

2. According to the petitioner, they are the firm engaged in export of various commodities including ground nuts, chillies, etc to various countries. The Government of India through the Ministry of Commerce has formulated a Scheme called Vishesh Krishi and Gram Udyog Yojana Scheme (in short "VKGUY Scheme" under its Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2004-2009. The objective of the Scheme as per the Policy is to promote export of Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers, Minor Forest produce, Dairy, Poultry and their value added products, and Gram Udyog products by incentivising exporters of such products. In respect of these products, the exporter is entitled for a duty credit scrip equivalent to 5% of the FOB value of exports. It is their further case that the above duty credit scrip can be used for import of any inputs or goods which are otherwise, permitted to be imported without any restrictions under the above Foreign Trade Policy. Accordingly, the petitioner firm intended to avail the export incentive available in respect of export of various agricultural produce, including ground nut. The petitioner company exported several consignments of ground nuts, chillies, etc through the Port of Chennai and these consignments were permitted by the first respondent for export. At the time of filing of the documents for permitting export, in respect of ground nut, the petitioner firm inadvertently indicated the Harmonised System (HS) classification under Heading 1202. The ground nut exported by the petitioner firm in terms of the above shipping documents were processed ground nuts in the sense these were removed from their shells and segregated by using equipment on the basis of their size and then packed in gunny bags according to counts. Such ground nuts which are otherwise processed in the manner above fall appropriately under Chapter 20 of the HS Code and are eligible for benefit of the above Scheme as per Appendix 37 A referred to above. Under such circumstances, the petitioner firm made representation to the first respondent requesting for amendment of the shipping documents with regard to the classification indicated. It is further submitted that the first respondent permitted such amendments and issued no objection certificates for carrying out these changes. On the basis of these permissions which were granted after due verification of the documents, the petitioner firm approached the second respondent for issue of duty credit scrips in terms of VKGUY Scheme. Pursuant to that, the third respondent has issued Duty Credit Scrip bearing Nos.0410080846 dated 24. 2006 in W.P.No.20955/2008, 0420081869 and 0410080868 dated 6. 2006 in W.P.No.20957 and 20958/2008. The above credit scrips have been utilised by the petitioner and sold to various purchasers, who in turn have used them for import of goods as permitted in the Foreign Trade Policy. While that being the position, the third respondent issued communications dated 27. 2008 in W.P.20955/2008 and a further communication dated 27. 2008 in W.Ps.20957 and 20958/2008 which are impugned in these petitions and contended that on the basis of the alleged audit scrutiny, export of ground nut kernels initially classified under Chapter 12 and then subsequently modified to Chapter 20 will not be eligible for the benefit under VKGUY Scheme. It was alleged that Chapter 20 covers value added products only. As a result, the third respondent directed surrender of the licence issued to the petitioner company, if it is already utilized, to pay customs duty equivalent to Rs.21,12,901/-(W.P.20955/2008), Rs.4,87,427/-(W.P.20957/2008) and Rs.2,57,911/-(W.P.20958/2008), respectively, together with interest at 15% per annum within seven days, failing which, it was intimated that action will be initiated against the petitioner under Fo