TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals under Section 15 maintainable against MEIS scrip rejection letters despite authority classification issues</h1> <h3>Ashwini Ashish Dighe Versus The Union of India, The Additional Secretary, SEZ Division, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi, The Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Pune, The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade Mumbai.</h3> Ashwini Ashish Dighe Versus The Union of India, The Additional Secretary, SEZ Division, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New ... Issues Involved:1. Whether an appeal is maintainable under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 against a rejection letter issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT).2. Whether the rejection letter dated 9 December 2022 by JDGFT was a non-speaking order and lacked consideration of the petitioner's submissions and documentary evidence.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Appeal under Section 15:The primary issue was whether the rejection letter issued by JDGFT could be appealed under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The petitioner contended that the appeal was maintainable under Section 9 read with Section 15, as Section 9(5) provides for an appeal against an order refusing to grant or renew a licence, certificate, or scrip in a manner similar to appeals under Section 15. The court analyzed the definition of 'adjudicating authority' under Section 2(a) and Section 13, noting that these sections typically apply to penalty impositions or confiscations. However, the court concluded that the authority processing the application under Section 9, although not an 'adjudicating authority' in the traditional sense, has the trappings of such authority. Therefore, the rejection of the appeal by ADGFT on the grounds that the rejection letter was not a decision or order by an adjudicating authority was incorrect. The court emphasized that the appeal should be maintainable as the ADGFT is a superior authority authorized to hear appeals against JDGFT's orders, as per Notification 101 (RE-2013)/2009-2014.2. Nature of the Rejection Letter:The second issue was whether the rejection letter dated 9 December 2022 was a non-speaking order. The court noted that the rejection letter failed to provide a detailed analysis or reasoning for the rejection, merely stating that the supplies were made against ineligible categories without addressing the petitioner's contention regarding the warehousing of goods in the Free Trade and Warehousing Zone. The court reiterated the principle that a quasi-judicial authority must articulate its reasoning in a speaking order. The lack of specific reasons or correlation details in the rejection letter rendered it deficient. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection letter and remanded the application back to JDGFT for fresh consideration, directing JDGFT to issue a speaking order after providing an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner.Conclusion:The court quashed the impugned orders dated 10 November 2023 and 9 December 2022, directing JDGFT to reconsider the petitioner's application dated 27 January 2022 with a speaking order by 31 March 2025. The appeal was deemed maintainable, and the rejection letter was found to be lacking in necessary detail and analysis. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
