2016 (6) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lligence Branch (Export) in the Office of the Commissioner of Customs ICD, Export, Commissionerate, TKD. New Delhi. 2. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the work of garment manufacture export at its manufacturing unit located in C-21, Hosiery Complex, Phase-II, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioner is stated to have submitted an application to the office of Development Commissioner, NOIDA Special Economic Zone ('NSEZ') on 8th September, 2006 for setting up a 100% Export Oriented Unit ('100% EOU') and this application is stated to have been allowed by the NSEZ on 7th December, 2006. It is stated that after a letter of permission (LOP) was issued by the NSEZ, an agreement was entered into between t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... investigation file and the non-relied upon documents (Non-RUDs). 6. By a letter dated 9th May, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority informed the Petitioner and the co-noticees that the request for inspection of the investigation file and the non-RUDs has been rejected and that the personal hearing in the matter has been fixed at 12.30 p.m. on 20th May, 2016. It is in those circumstances that the present petition was filed. 7. By an order dated 20th May, 2016 while directing notice to issue to the Respondent, the Court required Mr Satish Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent, to seek instructions on providing inspection to the Petitioner of the investigation file and the non-RUDs. The further proceedings pursuant to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the said letter dated 9th May, 2016 for such rejection makes it even more suspect. 11. As far as the other request for inspection of the investigation file is concerned, Mr Satish Kumar points out that there could be documents in the investigation file which cannot be shown to the Petitioner and other conotices on account of their nature. The Court is of the view that this by itself cannot be a reason to refuse inspection of the investigation file. If there are documents in the investigation file which, according to the Adjudicating Authority, cannot be shown to the Petitioner, the Adjudicating Authority should give reasons in writing for refusing inspection of such documents. 12. In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that ....