Mandatory notice and hearing for importer-exporter code action, while cancellation and penalty disputes may go to statutory appeal.

The statutory scheme required notice of proposed suspension or cancellation of an importer-exporter code, disclosure of grounds, and a reasonable opportunity to respond and be heard; administrative action taken without those safeguards was held invalid and quashed. By contrast, a challenge to an order cancelling scrips and imposing penalty fell within the statutory appellate channel, so writ jurisdiction was not the appropriate forum and the party was relegated to the alternative remedy. The text thus distinguishes between mandatory pre-decisional safeguards for code-related action and the normal rule of exhaustion of statutory appeal for cancellation and penalty orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the order cancelling the scrips and imposing penalty was to be examined in writ jurisdiction or relegated to the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether the communication marking the importer-exporter code to the Denied Entity List was sustainable in law without notice, reasons, and opportunity of hearing under the statutory scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the order cancelling the scrips and imposing penalty was to be examined in writ jurisdiction or relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The remedy structure under the Act provided an appellate forum against the order cancelling the scrips and imposing penalty. The Court treated that order as one falling within the statutory appellate channel and found no reason to depart from the normal rule of relegation to the alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation and penalty order was not entertained in writ jurisdiction and the appellant was relegated to the statutory remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the communication marking the importer-exporter code to the Denied Entity List was sustainable in law without notice, reasons, and opportunity of hearing under the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The statutory framework governing suspension and cancellation of importer-exporter code requires notice stating the grounds of proposed action and a reasonable opportunity to make a representation and, if desired, to be heard. The impugned communication merely stated that the code was marked to the Denied Entity List and did not disclose reasons or compliance with the mandatory safeguards. The Court also held that the earlier show-cause notice did not satisfy the statutory requirement for cancellation of the code in the manner adopted.

Conclusion: The communication was held to be unsustainable and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The intra-court appeal succeeded only to the extent of the Denied Entity List communication, while the remedy against the cancellation and penalty order remained before the statutory authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes notice, disclosure of grounds, and a hearing before suspension or cancellation of a code or licence, administrative action taken without those safeguards is invalid, while orders covered by an efficacious statutory appeal may be left to that remedy.

---