TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner is an Export Promotion and Capital Goods (hereinafter referred to as "EPCG") licence holder, who had imported various capital goods on concessional rate of 5% of customs duty. The goods were utilised by the petitioner for the manufacture of various export items. After fulfillment of the export obligation, the petitioner applied for the redemption of EPCG licence and in view of the fulfillment obligation, the second respondent had granted the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EOD) on various dates between 02.03.2006 and 27.08.2008 for each of the eight applications. After lapse of many years from the EOD certificate, the present impugned notices have been sent, seeking to regularise the case and recover the customs duty alo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present Writ Petitions and therefore, the Writ Petitions deserves to be rejected. 6. Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 reads as follows:- 16. Review.- The Central Government, in the case of any decision or order, not being a decision or order made in an appeal, made by the Director General, or the Director General in the case of any decision or order made by any officer subordinate to him, may on its or his own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the records of any proceeding in which a decision or an order imposing a penalty or redemption charges or adjudicating confiscation has been made and against which no appeal has been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the order reads as follows:- "31. On going through the provisions of the FTDR Act, we find that those do not grant power to the Respondent No.2 or its subordinates to redetermine or re-verify the deemed export benefits if such benefits have been approved or granted as per the provisions of the FTDR Act except by way of review as provided in Section 16. In the absence of any power under FDR Act, the Respondent No.2 or its subordinates cannot assume quasi-judicial power for instance, the power to re-determine or re-verify under the administrative guidelines i.e. Para 7 of the ANF-8 Form. Therefore, by virtue of Para 7 of the ANF- 8, the Respondent No.2 is deriving the quasi-judicial power which is beyond the provisions of FTDR Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DGFT has been illegally vested with the power to intervene in the subject matters coming within the purview of Sections 3, 5, 15, 16 and 19 in clear violation of sub section(3) of Section 6 of the FTDR Act. In other words, what is specifically prohibited by the FTDR Act, by taking aid of the HOP, the D.G.F.T has assumed such power in colourable exercise of the power conferred upon it." 10. Following the aforesaid decision in Alstom India Limited, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Union of India & others in WP.(c) No.4455 of 2013 had held that Joint DGFT has no powers to review his own orders in view of Section 16 of the FTDR Act. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- "4. ... Fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mence from the date of the demand notices. I am unable to contemplate as to how such date of reckoning could be construed from the proviso to Section 16, when it is unambiguously provided that two years period will commence from the date of decision or order which is sought to be revised. 13. The learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that since the petitioner had requested for an opportunity of personal hearing, pursuant to the impugned notices, the option of filing the Writ Petitions instead of availing the personal hearing, requires dismissal of the Writ Petitions on the ground of non availment of the alternate remedy. I am not in agreement with such a submission. It is a settled proposition of law, that when a notice is is....