Court orders fair hearing in trade regulation case, emphasizing due process and procedural fairness.

The court set aside the impugned order due to lack of a personal hearing, directing the respondents to provide a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and issue a reasoned order within a specified timeframe. Emphasizing the importance of due process, the judgment highlighted the necessity of complying with statutory provisions and ensuring procedural fairness in administrative proceedings. The writ petition was allowed without costs, emphasizing the fundamental principle of natural justice and the significance of adhering to legal requirements in trade regulation matters to protect rights and ensure transparency in administrative actions.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order; Non-fulfillment of export obligations due to loan repayment delay and natural calamity; Rejection of representation for extension of EPCG license; Lack of personal hearing as mandated by Section 9(4) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of high precision components, had imported capital goods under the EPCG scheme to increase production. Due to loan repayment delays and natural calamities, the petitioner could not fulfill export obligations within the stipulated period. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for an extension of the EPCG license, which was rejected by the 3rd respondent without granting a personal hearing, as required by Section 9(4) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the rejection was premature and the 3rd respondent lacked the authority to pass such an order.

The court noted that the impugned order was set aside due to the lack of a personal hearing and directed the respondents to issue a notice to the petitioner, grant a personal hearing, examine any records produced, and then pass an order on merits with reasons by a specified date. The court emphasized the importance of following due process and providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. The judgment highlighted the necessity of complying with statutory provisions, such as offering a personal hearing before making decisions that significantly impact the rights of the parties involved.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The court's decision underscored the fundamental principle of natural justice and the importance of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings. The judgment served as a reminder of the legal requirements for decision-making processes in matters concerning trade regulations and obligations, emphasizing the need for proper adherence to statutory provisions to safeguard the rights of individuals and ensure transparency and accountability in administrative actions.

---