TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice issued to the petitioner which averred that the petitioner had failed to fulfil the export obligation within the stipulated time and for stipulated value addition. The case set out against the petitioner that the committed value of the exports was Rs. 3,042 lakhs and out of the committed value of export, the petitioner has made exports of only Rs. 73.02 lakhs. On account of this view and on account of the findings of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, respondent No. 3, that the noticee firm had not appeared before him, the order imposing the fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- was passed against the petitioner. In coming to this conclusion the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade recorded the following findings :- "No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not interested in representing their case before me. I therefore have no option except to decide the case on merits on the basis of documents available on record. I find that in this case the show cause notice of even number dated 25-3-96 sent to the noticee firm by Registered AD post has not been replied to and the opportunity of personal hearing allowed to them to present their case on 6-12-96, 4-7-97, 1-9-97, 10-11-97, 22-12-97 and 19-1-98 have also not been availed of by the party." 2. The above order was assailed in appeal before the Appellate Authority which has passed the order dated 3-8-99 which is impugned in this writ petition. The challenge of the petitioner is two fold (1) That the impugned order in appeal does not gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition. Based on the arguments presented by the appellant and the documentary evidence, the Committee rejected the appeal." 3. He further states that even otherwise it is settled law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chittaranjana Dao v. State of West Bengal, - AIR 1963 SC 1696 that in an order of affirmation, reasons need not be given and accordingly the impugned order was sustainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon three judgments. In College of Vocational Studies v. S.S. Jaitely, AIR 1987 DELHI 134, it has been stated that the reasons must be given by the arbitrator for arriving at a conclusion otherwise it will not be possible to find how any why the arbitrator arrived at the figure impugned. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner who was in fact served as found by respondent No. 3. The petitioner cannot claim that there must be separate service for each hearing. In this connection the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in [(1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC)], R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) and Another, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows :- "We are definitely of the opinion that, on the relevant date when the order was passed, that is to say, August 24, 1977, the order was a nullity because it was in violation of the principles enunciated by this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei [(1967) 2 SCR 625] as also the observations in Administrative Law by H.W.R. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duled on 1-9-97 when in fact none appeared before respondent No. 3 on which date the case was not taken up by respondent No. 3. Eventually the case was taken up for hearing and decided on 6-4-98. In fact the plea of the petitioner in Paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition is to the following effect. "What is more, it has been stated, wrongly though, that the petitioner did not attend the personal hearing on 4-7-1997 and 1-9-1997 whereas ANNEXURE "NN" & "OO" (copies enclosed herewith) would show and conclusively prove that the petitioner's Counsel attended before him but his Private Secretary, Shri Patanjali Sharma recorded on the respective notices postponement of the hearing." is contradicted by the following contents of the letter of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot by any strech of imagination be said to violate principles of natural justice. Even otherwise the findings of fact regarding service on the petitioner and his continued absence for a considerable period are pure findings of the fact not amenable to interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a judgment reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1277, M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India which observed as follows :- "52. The true position, therefore, is that any Act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial, is open to challenge if it is in conflict with the Constitution or the govern....