DHAVAM INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX V DHANALAKSHMI Vs. ZONAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Y.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner's appeal as time barred. The petitioner has a right of appeal as against the order passed by the second respondent in terms of the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 199 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Limitation for filing such an appeal is stipulated under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act and the appeal should be presented within a period of 45 days from the date on which the decision or order is served on the party concerned. Over and above the said period of 45 days, the first respondent has power to condone the delay of 30 days. The petitioner admittedly did not prefer the appeal within a period of 45 plus 30 days and the time expired on 01.06.2015, whereas the appeal was presented only on 18.05.2017. Thus the appeal petition having been filed beyond the condonable period, the first respondent was justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal petition.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that paragraph No.5.14 of the Hand Book of Procedures issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade empowers the authority to close the issue in cases of non-fulfillment of export obligation by calling upon the concerned authority to remit the duty with interest and that the petitioner having paid the entire duty with interest in June 2015, it was incumbent on the part of the second respondent to regularize the EPCG license, but no orders were passed. Therefore, the petitioner could not file the appeal in time. This reason assigned by the petitioner is not acceptable as it is seen that the petitioner is aggrieved only by the imposition of penalty. The order-in-original dated 17.04.2015 only pertains to levy of penalty and the question of the authority being compelled to close the case by accepting the duty and interest alone does not arise.