SAKETH INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the order dated 3/8/1999 of the Appellate Committee, Ministry of Commerce passed in an appeal against an order dated 6/4/1998 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade. The order of the Additional Director General impugned in the appeal arose on account of a show cause notice issued to the petitioner which averred that the petitioner had failed to fulfil the export obligation within the stipulated time and for stipulated value addition. The case set out against the petitioner that the committed value of the exports was Rs. 3042.00 lakhs and out of the committed value of export, the petitioner has made exports of only Rs.73.02 lakhs. On account of this view and on account of the findings of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, respondent No. 3, that the noticee firm had not appeared before him, the order imposing the fine of Rs.50,00,000.00 was passed against the petitioner. In coming to this conclusion the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade recorded the following findings :-

(2.) The above order was assailed in appeal before the Appellate Authority which has passed the order dated 3/8/99 which is impugned in this writ petition. The challenge of the petitioner is two fold (1) That the impugned order in appeal does not give any reasons and accordingly deserves to be set aside and (2) that the original order of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard. In response to this Mr. Jayant Bhushan appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the impugned order gave reasons in the second paragraph which says that the export obligation of Rs.3042.00 lakhs were not fulfilled as exports were made for only Rs.73.02 lakhs leading to a value addition which was in the negative. The order impugned in appeal reads as follows :-

(3.) He further states that even otherwise it is settled law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chittaranjana Dao vs. State of west Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1696 that in an order of affirmation, reasons need not be given and accordingly the impugned order was sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon three judgments. In College of Vocational Studies vs. S.S. Jaitely, AIR 1987 DELHI 134, it has been stated that the reasons must be given by the arbitrator For arriving at a conclusion otherwise it will not be possible to find how and why the arbitrator arrived at the figure impugned. In my view the judgment cannot apply to the present case because this is the judgment which was in respect of an original award and not an appellate order. There is no dispute that the original order of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade has given reasons. The brief reasons given in paragraph 2 of the impugned order dated 3/8/1999 cannot be said to be no reasons at ail. Even otherwise I am satisfied that the order dated 6/4/1998 challenged before the Appellate Committee does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on M.L. Jaggi vs. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Limited (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 199 where it has been stated that in an award under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, an arbitrator must record the reasons where it affects the public interest. I have already recorded that the reasons were recorded in the original order. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the decision relied upon would not apply to the present case particularly when the order of the appellate authority extracted above in fact contained brief reasons. In so far as the second plea of the petitioner is concerned that the proceedings were ex-parte and hence against the principles of natural justice, a finding of the fact has been recorded by the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner has not chosen to appear inspite of being served. A bare perusal of the order shows that repeated efforts were made to serve the petitioner who was in fact served as found by respondent No. 3. The petitioner cannot claim that there must be separate service for each hearing. In this connection the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment reported in (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC), R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das vs. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) and another, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows :-