Export debarment for contaminated shrimp failed where sole responsibility and fraudulent conduct were not established.

The show-cause notice and debarment under Clause 7(1)(d) and (e) of the Exports (Control) Order, 1977 could not stand because the record did not establish that the exporter was solely responsible for the contamination of the frozen shrimp consignment. The cargo had been cleared for export after inspection, contamination was detected only in part of the shipment at destination, and transhipment or carrier custody provided a plausible alternative source. The material also failed to show any intentional, repeated, or dishonest conduct amounting to corrupt or fraudulent practice in export or commercial dealings. On those facts, the notice and debarment order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice and consequential debarment order under Clause 7(1)(d) and (e) of the Exports (Control) Order, 1977 were sustainable on the facts of the export of contaminated frozen shrimp, and whether the facts established any corrupt or fraudulent practice by the exporter.

Analysis: The cargo had been cleared for export by the Export Inspection Agency after inspection, and the contamination was found only in a fraction of the consignment at the destination. The material before the authority did not establish that the exporter was solely responsible for the contamination, particularly when the goods were thereafter in the custody of the carrier and transhipment during the voyage was a plausible source of contamination. The record also did not disclose any intentional, repeated, or dishonest conduct amounting to corrupt or fraudulent practice in commercial dealings or in exporting the goods. In these circumstances, the alleged facts did not satisfy the requirements of Clause 7(1)(d) or (e).

Conclusion: The show-cause notice and the debarment order were not legally sustainable and were liable to be quashed.

---