KRBL LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the interim order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, New Delhi. By virtue of this order, the petitioner's IEC No. 0595031790 has been suspended with immediate effect till further orders. The impugned order has been passed on the assumption that the petitioner has committed violations of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy made under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and, therefore, the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the latter Act have been attracted.

(2.) Mr Bhattacharya, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that this order suffers from various infirmities. First of all, he submitted that the impugned order has been passed under Section 8(1)(a) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') whereas the show cause notice issued on 09.04.2007 to the petitioner was under Section 8 (1)(b) of the said Act.

(3.) Secondly, Mr Bhattacharya submitted that the allegation mentioned in the show cause notice was that the petitioner had made fraudulent amendments / manipulations and had made exports referred to in the show cause notice in a fraudulent manner in violation of the provisions of the Act. He submitted that no details of the purported fraudulent amendments / manipulations have been mentioned in the show cause notice. It is also not indicated as to how the provisions of the Customs Act as also of the Foreign Trade Policy and the said Act have been violated. Therefore, according to Mr Bhattacharya, the petitioner was not made fully aware of the allegations against him and did not know as to what the petitioner had to answer to.