2015 (10) TMI 2129 - HC - Customs

Court grants petitioner's challenge, emphasizing fair hearing and procedural compliance.

IFB Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India & Anr.

The Court allowed the petitioner's challenge against the Policy Relaxation Committee's order denying further extension of export obligation. Despite the ... Grant of extension of export obligations – Improper application filed - Appellant contends that committee has failed to accede to the request of petitioner to club licences and request for correction of wrong reference number was rejected – No opportunity for personal hearing given – Respondent contends that opportunity was granted but no representations were made by petitioner as per Para 2.59 of FTP and no application was filed under Appendix 2K as per PH in ANF2E – Held That:- Request for hearing granted with condition of representation to be made in terms of Appendix 2K as per PH in ANF2E within 2 weeks – All grounds to be raised by Petitioner; personal hearing be granted within a period of 4 weeks thereafter – Speaking order to be passed after the hearing within 4 weeks – Decided partly in favour of Appellant. Issues: Challenge to order of Policy Relaxation Committee regarding extension of export obligation, denial of further extension, lack of personal hearing, compliance with Foreign Trade Policy procedure.In this case, the petitioner challenged the order of the Policy Relaxation Committee dated 09.06.2015, which denied further extension of export obligation despite previous approvals. The petitioner, a sick industrial company under a rehabilitation scheme, had requested an extension of export obligation, which was partially granted but later rejected for certain licenses. The petitioner alleged discrimination as similar requests were granted to others. Moreover, the Committee's refusal to correct a reference number resulted in the denial of export credit. The petitioner also contended that no personal hearing was granted before the rejection. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted a personal hearing opportunity after the order was passed.The Court noted that the respondent acknowledged the petitioner's right to a personal hearing but highlighted the petitioner's non-compliance with the prescribed procedure under the Foreign Trade Policy. Despite this, the Court disposed of the writ petition based on the assurance of a granted hearing. The Court outlined specific terms for the petitioner to follow: submitting a representation in compliance with the prescribed procedure within two weeks, raising all grounds in the representation, attending a personal hearing within four weeks, providing supporting documents within the same period, and receiving a speaking order within four weeks post-hearing. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 09.06.2015.Overall, the judgment focused on the petitioner's right to a fair hearing and compliance with the procedural requirements under the Foreign Trade Policy. The Court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure while ensuring the petitioner's opportunity to present their case effectively.