Fair hearing in export obligation matters: refusal to extend time was set aside and rehearing ordered.

Refusal to extend time for compliance with export obligation was set aside because the record showed the petitioners had not been given a fair opportunity to place supporting documents before the authority. Contemporaneous events, including later court orders and counsel's letter, indicated that the hearing had been deferred and that the documents were to be produced on the next date, while the authority's affidavit and order did not satisfactorily reconcile the inconsistency in the record. The advocate's letter was treated as relevant evidence under Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the matter was directed to be heard again from the stage at which it had been left.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order refusing extension of time to meet the export obligation was liable to be set aside for denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing and whether the matter should be reheard from the stage at which it was left.

Analysis: The Court found that the sequence of contemporaneous events, including the later court orders and the letter written by the petitioners' advocate in the ordinary course of business, supported the petitioners' case that the hearing had been deferred and that they were to produce supporting documents at the next date. The affidavit of the authority and the impugned order did not satisfactorily explain the inconsistency in the record, and the materials showed that the petitioners had not been given a fair chance to place the relevant documents before the authority. The Court also treated the advocate's letter as relevant under Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the petitioners were entitled to be heard again from the stage at which the matter stood left.

---