Unfair Import Export Code cancellation overturned for lack of hearing

The High Court found that the cancellation of the Import Export Code without granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice. The Court quashed the impugned order, directing the respondent to reconsider the matter and issue a new order after allowing the petitioner to substantiate their claim within two weeks. The judgment stressed the significance of procedural fairness and prompt action by the respondent.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus to challenge cancellation of Import Export Code and request rectification of records.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief against the impugned order cancelling their Import Export Code. The petitioner had obtained a Special Import Licence for supply of transformers as deemed exports. Despite submitting proof of fulfilment of export obligation, the first respondent cancelled the Import Export Code without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without serving a copy and was only known through the internet. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence of exporting the finished product. The Court noted the violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner before cancellation. The impugned order was quashed, directing the respondent to reconsider the matter and pass a new order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate their claim within two weeks.

Conclusion:
The High Court, after considering the submissions from both parties and examining the available documents, found that the cancellation of the Import Export Code without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was a violation of natural justice. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondent to reevaluate the matter in accordance with the law, ensuring the petitioner is given a chance to present their case. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and ordered the respondent to act promptly on the matter.

---