Writ maintainable against interest demand where foreign trade adjudication powers do not cover standalone restitution claims.

Writ jurisdiction was not barred by alternate remedy because the statutory appeal under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 applies to penalty or confiscation orders, not to a standalone demand for interest. The adjudicating authority's powers under Sections 11, 13 and 17 were confined to contravention, penalty and confiscation, and did not extend to adjudicating or coercively enforcing an interest claim on money paid under a Supreme Court arrangement. The related directions for forfeiture of the bank guarantee and inclusion of the IEC number in the Denied Entity List were therefore without jurisdiction, while any lawful claim for interest could be pursued before the proper forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was not maintainable because an alternate remedy of appeal was available under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992; (ii) whether the adjudicating authority under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 had jurisdiction to demand interest, forfeit the bank guarantee, and direct inclusion of the petitioner's IEC number in the Denied Entity List.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was not maintainable because an alternate remedy of appeal was available under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

Analysis: The appeal provision under Section 15 is attracted to decisions or orders of the adjudicating authority where penalty is imposed or confiscation is adjudged. The impugned demand was for interest on the amount paid pursuant to the Supreme Court's interim arrangement, and such a demand does not fall within the statutory scheme for penalty or confiscation. Since no efficacious statutory appellate remedy was shown for the specific grievance, the normal rule of alternate remedy did not bar the writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternate remedy was rejected and the writ petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the adjudicating authority under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 had jurisdiction to demand interest, forfeit the bank guarantee, and direct inclusion of the petitioner's IEC number in the Denied Entity List.

Analysis: The statutory powers under Sections 11, 13 and 17 are confined to contravention, penalty, confiscation, and connected adjudicatory powers. The Act contains no provision authorising adjudication of a standalone claim for interest on money paid under the Supreme Court's order. Interest could not be treated as a penalty, and the authority's civil-court-like powers under Section 17 did not enlarge its substantive jurisdiction. The claim for restitution or interest, if otherwise available, had to be enforced before a competent forum and not under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The consequential directions regarding forfeiture of the bank guarantee and the Denied Entity List were therefore without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The impugned action was held to be without jurisdiction and liable to be interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief against the impugned demand and the consequential coercive steps, while leaving the respondents free to pursue any lawful claim for interest before the proper forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorises adjudication only of penalty or confiscation, an adjudicating authority cannot enlarge its jurisdiction to determine a separate claim for interest or enforce it through coercive statutory consequences in the absence of express enabling provision.

---