VARALAKSHMI EXPORTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5680/2006 where the petitioners have sought to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 23rd December 1999 which was subsequently confirmed in appeal by order dated 12th September 2005 by the 3rd respondent imposing penalty of Rs. 1.50 crores by exercising power under Section 11 read with Section 14 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of Advance Licence extending duty exemption concession given to the appellants-petitioners for importing mulberry raw silk fabrics by licence dated 25th January 1993.

(2.) As the contention of Mr. Kiran S. Javali, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners is very limited, namely, that the appellants-petitioners had not been given a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 14(d) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act before imposing the impugned penalty for the alleged contravention of the Act, Rules, Orders and Export or Import Policy or the licence granted therein exercising power conferred under Section 11 of the Act, both the learned Single Judge as well we are satisfied that the competent authorities by proceeding dated 16th August 1999 gave an opportunity to the petitioners to appear for personal hearing on 7th September 1999, however, on that day, the appellants/petitioners did not appear but only made a representation and consequently, the impugned order dated 23rd December 1999 came to be passed by the 2nd respondent

(3.) In our considered opinion, since we are satisfied that there is no illegality or irregularity in the decision making process, which alone is concerned for judicial review by exercising the power conferred on this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.