IFB INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 9 -6 -2015 passed by Policy Relaxation Committee. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide order dated 14 -7 -2004 was declared as a sick industrial company and IDBI was appointed as the Operating Agency who prepared the rehabilitation scheme. The scheme was sanctioned on 14 -1 -2009. Para 12.4(b) of the Scheme provided for "To consider grant of extension of Export Obligation for a further period of 5 years to be adjusted against current exports under clause 4.1.9A of Foreign Trade Policy 2004 -09 against liability of Rs. 532 lakhs." The petitioner on 26 -6 -2009 approached the Chairman of Policy Relaxation Committee, Director General Foreign Trade, New Delhi for bringing to its notice the order dated 14 -1 -2009 passed by the BIFR. On 23 -9 -2009, the BIFR disposed of the miscellaneous applications filed by the petitioner directing the DGFT to consider grant of extension of export obligation for a further period of five years to be adjusted against current export as per the list containing particulars of 22 licences.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that during the extended period, exports were carried out to the total tune of Rs. 13,14,27,465/ - and Rs. 38,03,291/ - in quantitative terms. The grievance of the petitioner is that further extension sought with respect to 8 licences, has been rejected while similarly placed persons have been granted relaxation. It is also submitted that the Committee has failed to accede to the request of the petitioner to club the licences and request for correction of wrong reference number was rejected and consequently the credit for export was not given. Mr. Ganesh also contends that before passing the order of rejection no personal hearing was granted to the petitioners.

(3.) WE had passed over the matter once to enable Mr. Jetly, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to take appropriate instructions. Mr. Jetly submits, on instructions, that although the request of the petitioner for personal hearing was acceded to but no representation was made as per the prescribed procedure laid out in Para 2.59 of Foreign Trade Policy and no application was filed under Appendix 2K as per PH in ANF2E.