TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... II. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondents to consider the Exports Shipments made under the Shipping Bill Nos.: 6482393 & the Shipping Bill No.: 6483064, both dated 03.12.2021 towards fulfillment of Export Obligation under the Advance Authorisation No.: 0511005106 dated 01.10.2021; and III. Pass such other/further order(s) or direction(s) in favour of the Petitioner that this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest and furtherance of justice." 2. The facts of the case would show that the petitioner, earlier known as OC Sweaters Private Limited, is a limited liability partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting various kinds of garments and allied accessories. Its registered office and factory are situated at Plot No. 80, Sector 34, Hero Honda Chowk, Gurugram, Haryana - 122004. 3. The petitioner avers that one EMJ Apparel Group LLC, Los Angeles, USA, had placed an urgent order for purchase of certain garment items from the petitioner vide Purchase Order No. 62557 dated 05.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in the GST invoices, and the same were also mentioned in Shipping Bill Nos. 6482393 and 6483064, both dated 03.12.2021. 6. It is also pleaded that at the time of making the aforesaid export shipments, the petitioner informed respondent No. 3 as well as ICEGATE about the technical glitches and requested them to cure the same so that the export shipments could be processed under the Advance Authorization Scheme. However, despite the petitioner's best efforts and repeated communications to respondent No. 3 and ICEGATE, the issue remained unresolved. Thereafter, on 07.12.2021, the petitioner again requested respondent No. 3 to transmit the data relating to the aforesaid Advance Authorization Scheme to the customs port. However, no action was taken by respondent No. 3. 7. According to the petitioner, having been left with no other efficacious remedy, it was constrained to file an application before the PRC (PRC) functioning under the supervision of respondent No. 2, in terms of Para 2.58 of the FTP, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "FTP") framed under the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992, which deals with cases of genuine hardship faced by exporters or importe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06 dated 01.10.2021. 12. Learned counsel also submitted that even after the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner continued to pursue its grievance. However, the respondents failed to consider the petitioner's case in its correct perspective. 13. It was further emphasized that, after the aforesaid two export shipments under Shipping Bill Nos. 6482393 and 6483064, both dated 03.12.2021, the petitioner made several subsequent shipments under the subject Advance Authorization No. 0511005106 dated 01.10.2021, and all such subsequent shipments were duly considered under the Advance Authorization Scheme. 14. On this basis, learned counsel submitted that the impugned orders dated 03.01.2023, 20.10.2023, and 22.03.2024, passed by the PRC, suffer from complete non-application of mind and are liable to be set aside, being unreasonable, arbitrary, and unjust to the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that despite sufficient evidence and material having been placed on record, the impugned orders failed to consider the material facts. According to him, it was only on account of certain technical glitches on the part of the respondents that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was taken, leaving the petitioner with no alternative but to approach this Court for redressal of its grievance. 22. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 23. It is noteworthy that although an opportunity to file reply was granted to the respondents, no reply has been filed till date. Consequently, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner remain uncontroverted. 24. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 25. The short issue which arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders passed by the PRC, rejecting the petitioner's request for relaxation and refusing to consider the two export shipments under the Advance Authorization Scheme, violate the principles of natural justice and contravene stipulations envisaged in FTP. 26. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to Para 2.59 of the FTP, which deals with exemption from policy/procedure and reads as under: "DGFT may in public interest pass such orders or grant such exemption, relaxation or relief, as he may deem fit and proper, on grounds of genuine hardship and adverse impac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the PRC, or by any decision/order passed by any authority under the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, such importer or exporter may make a specific request for personal hearing before the DGFT, along with the prescribed application fee as per Appendix 2K. 30. A conjoint reading of Paras 2.59 and 2.60 of the FTP would show that the DGFT/competent authority is not powerless in cases where an exporter or importer demonstrates genuine hardship or adverse impact on trade. Rather, the policy itself contemplates grant of relaxation, exemption or relief in appropriate cases, and also recognizes the importance of affording personal hearing for effective grievance redressal. 31. In the present case, the petitioner's grievance is that though the two export shipments covered under Shipping Bill Nos. 6482393 and 6483064, both dated 03.12.2021, were intended to be processed under the Advance Authorization Scheme, the same could not be so processed due to non-transmission of the Advance Authorization data from the Regional Authority to the Customs system/ICEGATE. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said difficulty arose on account of technical glitches attributable to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing bill under the zero-rated scheme. It was further pointed out that the authorisation details had, in any event, been mentioned in the description column of the shipping bill. 35. Despite the aforesaid material, the impugned orders do not appear to have considered the issue as to whether the petitioner was prevented from availing the benefit of the Advance Authorization Scheme on account of a technical glitch beyond its control. The orders also do not reflect any meaningful consideration of the petitioner's plea that it had fulfilled its export obligations within the prescribed period and had repeatedly approached the authorities for resolution of the technical issue. 36. At this stage, it is beneficial to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in V Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 wherein, the court has held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak and it must not be like the "inscrutable face of a sphinx". While referring to line of precedents, the in the said judgment noted the following conclusions: "47. Summarising the above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process". (emphasis supplied) 37. It is observed from the aforesaid discussion that reasons in support of an administrative or quasi-judicial decision must be cogent, clear and succinct. A mere pretence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30. With this background we shall proceed to consider the validity of the three alleged deviations of the State Government from the fundamental judicial procedure. In the present case, the officer who received the objections of the parties and heard them personally or through their representatives, was the Secretary of the Transport Department. Under the „Madras Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions‟ made by the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution, the Secretary of a department is its head. One of the parties to the dispute before the State Government was the Transport Department functioning as a statutory authority under the Act. The head of that department received the objections, heard the parties, recorded the entire proceedings and presumably discussed the matter with the Chief Minister before the latter approved the scheme. Though the formal orders were made by the Chief Minister, in effect and substance, the enquiry was conducted and personal hearing was given by one of the parties to the dispute itself. It is one of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure that the person or persons who are entrusted with the duty of h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commonly regarded as holding a quasi-judicial office, such as an arbitrator. The reason for this clearly is that, having to adjudicate as between two or more parties, he must come to his adjudication with an independent mind, without any inclination or bias towards one side or other in the dispute." The aforesaid decisions accept the fundamental principle of natural justice that in the case of quasi-judicial proceedings, the authority empowered to decide the dispute between opposing parties must be one without bias towards one side or other in the dispute. It is also a matter or fundamental importance that a person interested in one party or the other should not, even formally, take part in the proceedings though in fact he does not influence the mind of the person, who finally decides the case. This is on the principle that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The hearing given by the Secretary, Transport Department, certainly offends the said principle of natural justice and the proceeding and the hearing given, in violation of that principle, are bad." 39. In the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v....