TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iate and prove its case, then, it would have pointed out that there was no occasion for invoking the powers that are conferred in the authorities. 2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern, inter alia, carrying on business of manufacturing metal containers from its factory at Mumbai. The first respondent is the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade and the second respondent is the Deputy Chief Controller of Import and Export. They are exercising powers under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Import Control Order, 1955. The third respondent is the Union of India. 3. The order dated 7th October, 1997 passed by the Appellate Committee-I is challenged in this writ petition. That order modifies the earlie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the factory was carried out way back in 1987 and the Inspector did not find any irregularities in the records maintained by the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, an explanation was sought by the Directorate of Industry about the utilisation of the imported materials. Then, some correspondence took place and eventually, though the details, according to the petitioner, were furnished, there was a change in the import policy. The raw materials utilised by the petitioner came to be placed under Open General Licence regime. The petitioner, thereafter, received a letter of 11th April, 1989 from the Joint Chief Controller of Import, summoning it for a hearing. Since the proprietor was not in Mumbai, the date was sought to be postponed. In the meanwh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing before the same authority again by letter dated 20th February, 1996. Since there was no response to that communication, the petitioner invoked section 15 of the Act of 1992 by filing an appeal before the Appellate Committee. The Appellate Committee entertained the appeal by a conditional order. Thereafter, the petitioner complains that, the impugned order dated 7th October, 1997 holds that the documents submitted by the petitioner indicate that it has been involved in the manufacture, but there are no further documents to corroborate the utilisation of the imported material. 8. It is this conclusion which is challenged before us on merits. Though the penalty has been scaled down to Rs. 5 lakhs, what the petitioner complains is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apparent that in the order (order-in-original), the authority has proceeded on the footing that the petitioner has failed to avail of the opportunity of personal hearing. It is stated that the petitioner was provided such opportunity on 18th September, 1995 and 27th October, 1995, but the petitioner's sole proprietor/representative failed to turn up on medical ground. There is no documentary evidence supplied such as medical certificate etc. There is a further finding that the petitioner also failed to furnish any written reply to the show cause notice. It is observed in para 5 that there has been no response from the petitioner up to the date of the issuance of the order. That is why the Additional Director proceeds on the footing that....