Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 4-I of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 was legally sustainable on the facts, and whether the petitioner could be held liable for alleged non-fulfilment of export obligations.
Analysis: The Court found that the delay in implementation of the project, the changes at the foreign collaborator's end, and the repeated permissions and waivers granted by the authorities for withdrawal from the 100% export oriented unit scheme were material circumstances that had not been properly considered. The authorities had themselves acted on the petitioner's applications for debonding and domestic sale, and the record did not show any intentional or direct violation attributable to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the penal provision could not be invoked as a matter of course, because liability to penalty required a clear and attributable breach of the licence conditions.
Conclusion: The invocation of Section 4-I was held to be arbitrary and illegal, and the penalty was unsustainable; the petitioner succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty provision cannot be applied unless the alleged violation is clearly attributable to the person proceeded against, and the authority must consider the surrounding circumstances, including permissions and waivers already granted, before imposing penal liability.