Court restores Importer Exporter Code (IEC) due to procedural violations under Foreign Trade Act.

The Court found that the suspension of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) without proper procedure violated Section 8 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act. While the initial notice lacked specificity on grounds for suspension, a subsequent notice outlined the violations clearly. The Court directed the restoration of the petitioner's IEC, instructing them to respond to the compliant notice within two weeks. Respondents were ordered to issue a speaking order within four weeks. The petition was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Impugning suspension of Importer Exporter Code without proper procedure under Section 8 of the FTDR Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the suspension of its Importer Exporter Code (IEC) without following the procedure outlined in Section 8 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Section 8 mandates that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) or an authorized officer must issue a written notice to the importer/exporter, stating the grounds for suspension or cancellation of the IEC and providing an opportunity to respond. The petitioner argued that no show cause notice was issued, and the DGFT did not communicate the grounds for suspending the IEC or provide a speaking order for the suspension.

The DGFT countered by stating that a show cause notice was indeed issued on 11.05.2022, followed by a reminder on 06.06.2022, and the IEC was suspended on 31.08.2022. However, the Court found that the notice did not comply with Section 8 requirements as it did not specify the grounds for the proposed action. Additionally, the order dated 31.08.2022 was deemed a non-speaking order, lacking details on the grounds for suspension.

Upon review, the Court noted that the subsequent show cause notice dated 15.11.2022 properly outlined the grounds for action against the petitioner under Sections 13 & 14 for violating Sections 8 and 11 of the FTDR Act. The Court accepted this notice as compliant with Section 8 requirements and directed the restoration of the petitioner's IEC, setting aside the previous order of suspension.

The Court directed the petitioner to treat the show cause notice dated 15.11.2022 as a notice under Section 8 of the FTDR Act, allowing the petitioner to respond within two weeks. The respondents were instructed to consider the petitioner's response and issue a speaking order within four weeks thereafter. The petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---