TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nes, wagons etc. At present a consignment of hydraulic cylinder is lying at the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport which is required for the manufacture of a crane at the Bokaro Steel Plant of the Steel Authority of India Limited. On 22nd February, 2009 the said consignment arrived at the airport. The agent of the petitioner filed necessary documents with the customs authorities for its release. On 23rd/24th February, 2009 the agent of the petitioner was informed that the import could not be completed as the I.E.C. was not functioning. On 25th and 26th February, 2009 the agent of the petitioner informed the petitioner that I.E.C. of the petitioner had been suspended by the respondent authorities. Since due to non-release of the goods the petitioner was severely prejudiced and as the particulars could not be provided by the agent, in the first week of March, 2009 the petitioner made enquiries with the authorities, but without any effect. On 18th March, 2009 a letter demanding justice was issued, but it went unheeded. Aggrieved, the writ petition was filed. 2. The matter was moved on 23rd March, 2009 when directions were issued for filing of affidavits. Affidavits ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice to show-cause was issued and the petitioner replied in writing. Thus ample opportunity was given to the petitioner no. 1 to put forward their case. However, the petitioners failed to avail themselves of the opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, order was passed. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed. Under Section 15(3) the order passed in appeal has become final. By the order passed by the adjudicating authority the petitioner was informed that non-payment of penalty would lead to suspension of I.E.C. without any further notice till payment of the full fiscal penalty. Moreover, as the petitioners undertook by declaration dated 5th December, 1996 that they would be liable to penal action in the event of failure to fulfil the export obligation under the Act or the Rules and the orders framed thereunder, the Customs Act, 1962 and EXIM Policy, the petitioner is estopped from contending that he is entitled for an opportunity of being heard before an order of suspension is passed. Moreover, there is no allegation of unreasonableness or unfairness. It has not been stated in the absence of opportunity of hearing that the petitioner w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y person has contravened any law relating to Central Excise or customs or Foreign Exchange or has committed any other economic offence under any other law for the time being in force as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette; or (b) the Director-General has reason to believe that any person has made an export or import in a manner gravely prejudicial to the trade relations of India with any foreign country or to the interests of other persons engaged in imports or exports or has brought disrepute to the credit or the goods of the country, the Director-General may call for the record or any other information from that person and may, after giving to that person a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or cancel the Importer-Exporter Code Number and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice and, if that person so desires, of being heard, suspend for a period, as may be specified in the order, or cancel the Importer-Exporter Code Number granted to that person. (2) Where any Importer-Exporter Code N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned therein, and, if he so desires, of being heard in the matter. 7. A reading of Section 11(4) shows if penalty is not paid it may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. In case of such failure to pay the penalty, the Importer-Exporter Code may be suspended till the penalty is paid. Section 14 prescribes the procedure for adjudication before the imposition of penalty or order directing confiscation. 8. In the instant case I find that a show cause notice was issued on 24th March, 2003 with regard to the payment of customs duty for non-production of progress report. Consequently two demand notices were issued on 29th May, 2000 and 27th June, 2000. The petitioner belatedly filed the progress report as evident from its letter dated 19th July, 2000 and prayed for condoning the delay in filing the same. As evident from the letter dated 8th September, 2000 the progress report was rejected by the respondent no. 5. However, the petitioner was given an opportunity for personal hearing. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 22nd July, 2003 for violation of import-export policy was issued. Since show cause notice was not replied to, a defaulter order dated 3rd March, 2004 was is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is clear and unambiguous. Since suspension flows from the order of penalty, imposition of penalty and the act of suspension cannot be read in isolation. Suspension is corollary to penalty. That non-payment of penalty would lead to the suspension of I.E.C. without any further notice till full penalty is paid is evident from Paragraph 3 of the order-in-original which the petitioner was aware of. Assuming that the petitioners were not aware of the actual text of the order and was thus not aware that non-payment of penalty would lead to suspension, however, the petitioner is estopped from raising the plea of denial of natural justice before issuance of the order of suspension in view of the "Declaration/undertaking" furnished on 5th December, 2006 whereby the petitioner undertook "That I/We shall be liable to penal action in accordance with the EXIM policy/procedure/Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, or the Rules and Orders framed thereunder and the Customs Act, 1962 in addition to forfeiture of Bank Guarantee or any other Bond/Guarantee given to the Customs, in the event of failure to fulfil the export obligation as stipulated, within the export obligation period as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As observed in Crawford v. Spooner (1846) 6 MOO PC 1, the courts cannot aid the Legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, they cannot add or mend, and by construction make up deficiencies which are left there. [See State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathibhai Patel - 1998 (3) SCC 234]. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. [See Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. - 1978 (1) ALL ER 948.] Rules of interpretation do not permit the courts to do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning. The courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. (Per Lord Loreburn, L.C. in Vickers Sons") 15. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said. "Statutes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the provisions under "this Act that is, under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Though in Section 8 Legislature has consciously enumerated a modus prior to suspension or cancellation of the I.E.C., a separate procedure has been prescribed in Section 14 of the Act for contravention of provisions of "this Act" which has been admittedly adhered to by the respondents. Therefore, as the statutory provisions operate in different background and context and the language is plain and unambiguous, the answer, whether the petitioner should have been given a further opportunity, has to be in the negative as it is an established proposition of law that court cannot read into words which the Legislature has consciously omitted. Moreover, as held in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra) "The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said." Hence, as the Act is a fiscal law, section 11(4) has to be considered textually. Under the Act in case of non-payment of penalty, the authority has a discretion to suspend the Code. It....