Court orders DGFT to reconsider application based on investigation report, sets strict timelines for fresh decisions.

The Court directed the DGFT to reconsider the petitioner's application in light of the DRI's investigation report and ordered fresh orders to be passed within twelve weeks. The petitioner was directed to appear before the adjudicating officer for the DRI's notice, with the adjudicating authority instructed to pass an order within six weeks. The Court set aside communications from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade issued without a personal hearing for the petitioner, directing a fresh decision post-hearing. The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The petitioner sought to quash letters from the Director General of Foreign Trade declining to consider redemption of licenses and issuance of an export obligation discharge certificate due to an ongoing investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai. Subsequently, new notices were issued by the DGFT and the Union Government rejected a request for an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC).

Details of the Judgment:

1. The petitioner initiated proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the letters from the DGFT. The DGFT informed the Court that the DRI had completed its investigation and issued a notice to show cause. The Court directed the DGFT to reconsider the petitioner's application in light of the DRI's report and ordered fresh orders to be passed within twelve weeks. Subsequently, new notices were issued by the Joint Director General and Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, which the petitioner sought to challenge.

2. The DRI had issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause, which was not questioned in the proceedings. The petitioner agreed to appear before the adjudicating officer for a hearing. The Court directed the adjudicating authority to pass an order of adjudication within six weeks after the hearing. The Court emphasized that the actions of the DGFT were based on the DRI's investigation, and therefore, the adjudicating officer should address the DRI's notice to show cause.

3. The Court disposed of the petition with the following directions: the petitioner to appear before the adjudicating officer for the DRI's notice, the adjudicating officer to pass an order within six weeks, and the hearing of the new notices by the DGFT to be scheduled for directions. The Court set aside the communications from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade issued without providing the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, directing a fresh decision after the petitioner's hearing.

4. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but issued directions to facilitate the passing of an order of adjudication by the adjudicating officer based on the DRI's notice to show cause. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---