2022 (8) TMI 662 - HC - Customs

High Court quashes Order-in-Original, emphasizes procedural fairness

Pride Agro Fresh LLP Versus The Union of India & Ors.

The High Court of Bombay quashed the Order-in-Original under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, due to the lack of opportunity for ... Principles of natural justice - opportunity of hearing was extended to the Petitioner or not - petitioner is guilty of fraud or not - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice is dated 6th June 2022. As per paragraph 10 of the show cause notice, the Petitioner was directed to file reply by 4.00 p.m. on 7th June 2022. The Petitioner, it appears, has filed Reply within the stipulated time, however, the Petitioner was not provided with a video conferencing link nor was given hearing. The same is not in consonance with the show cause notice, so also the provisions of the Act, 1992. The impugned order is passed on 7th June 2022 itself - As the opportunity of hearing was not given as mandated under the Statute and the show cause notice, the present petition is entertained. The impugned order is set aside only on the ground that an opportunity of hearing was not extended - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Adherence to principles of natural justice in passing the Order-in-Original under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.2. Allegations of fraud against the Petitioner and the validity of the reply filed.3. Failure to provide an opportunity of being heard through video conferencing as per the show cause notice.4. Quashing of the impugned order due to the lack of opportunity of hearing and directing the Petitioner to appear before the Authority for a fresh decision.Analysis:Issue 1: The Petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The Petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, which is mandated under Section 8 of the Act, 1992. The Court agreed with the Petitioner's submission, emphasizing that the impugned order, lacking an opportunity of hearing, was legally flawed.Issue 2: Respondent's counsel accused the Petitioner of fraud, claiming that the Letters of Credit presented were not genuine, as confirmed by the Union Bank of India. The Petitioner's reply did not request a personal hearing, and the Respondents argued that the fraud allegations justified the order passed. However, the Court did not delve into the merits of the fraud allegations, focusing solely on the procedural irregularity of not providing an opportunity of hearing.Issue 3: The show cause notice stipulated a video conferencing opportunity for the Petitioner to be heard, with a specific time frame for response. Despite the Petitioner filing a reply within the deadline, the Court noted that no video conferencing link was provided, contravening the notice's terms and the Act, 1992. This failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure further supported the Court's decision to quash the impugned order.Issue 4: Given the absence of a proper opportunity of hearing, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Petitioner to appear before the Authority for a fresh decision. The Court stressed the importance of extending a fair hearing to the Petitioner in accordance with statutory provisions. The judgment clarified that it did not assess the substantive arguments raised by either party, leaving those issues open for future consideration.In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay upheld the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles in administrative actions under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Court's decision to quash the order and mandate a fresh decision with proper hearing underscored the significance of due process in such matters, ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties involved.