2007 (5) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as been suspended with immediate effect till further orders. The impugned order has been passed on the assumption that the petitioner has committed violations of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy made under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and, therefore, the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the latter Act have been attracted. 2. Mr. Bhattacharya, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that this order suffers from various infirmities. First of all, he submitted that the impugned order has been passed under Section 8(l)(a) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') whereas the show caus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng was granted to the petitioner on 13-4-2007. He states, as a responsible officer of the Court, that he was the counsel for the petitioner before the Director General of Foreign Trade and the 'hearing' did not last for more than a few seconds. He submits that he was not even permitted to sit. According to him, this clearly indicates that the bogey of personal hearing was a sham. 6. Fifthly, Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that the principles of natural justice are inbuilt, in express terms, into Section 8 of the said Act, which requires the Director General to give a notice in writing informing the effected person of the grounds on which the IEC number is proposed to be suspended or cancelled. The provisions of Section 8 also make it cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tc. He submitted that, merely on the basis of a prima facie view, the Importer-Exporter Code Number cannot be suspended under Section 8(l)(a) of the said Act. 8. Although Mr. Bhattacharya made submissions with regard to the merits of the matter, in my view, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the same at this stage. 9. Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, who appears on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the mentioning of Section 8(1)(b) in the show cause notice was a typographical error and the show cause notice is one which was issued under Section 8(l)(a) and under Section 13 of the said Act. However, with regard to the other objections which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while controverting t....