2017 (9) TMI 1213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued advance licence no. 0510030107 dated 05.01.2001 for Rs. 2,91,540/- and advance licence no. 0510031478 dated 05.02.2001 for Rs. 2,67,245/-. The licences were subject to export obligations of US$ 53484 (FOB value basis) and US$ 24294 (FOB value basis) respectively. 2. Admittedly, RITES neither surrendered the licence nor completed the export obligations. In the circumstances, DGFT issued two show cause notices (both dated 15.02.2008) calling upon RITES to furnish the requisite documents pertaining to the respective advance licences. 3. RITES replied to the aforesaid notices by letters dated 07.04.2008, inter alia, stating that the advance licences had not been used and were misplaced. RITES further requested the DGFT to close the files.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r RITES had become aware of the impugned orders and more than a year after the DGFT had closed the cases. It is also relevant to note that the files were closed at the request of RITES and in RITES paying the penalties without any reservation. 9. Concededly, RITES had an alternate remedy to file an appeal against the impugned orders within a period of 45 days receiving the orders in terms of Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. However, RITES did not avail of the statutory remedies. 10. It is apparent from the above that present petitions are grossly delayed and have been filed to overcome the failure of not availing of the alternate remedies within the time specified. 11. In A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he communication dated 20.02.2010, fiscal penalty would be imposed on RITES. RITES neither responded to the said communication nor participated in the proceedings despite being aware of the same. The learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the impugned orders were sent to all directors of RITES. Thus, even if RITES did not receive the impugned orders at its office address, its Directors had, undisputedly, received the same. 14. However, RITES did not institute any proceedings to challenge the impugned orders. More importantly, on becoming aware of the impugned orders, RITES paid the penalties and requested for closure of the cases. The payments made by RITES were not under protest or with any reservation. The communicatio....