SUNSHINE INTERNATIONAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is an exporter, was issued Annual Advance Licence No. 2910000332, dated 29th March, 2000 for a CIF value of Rs. 1,25,00,000/ - for import of required inputs for the export product -Handicrafts covered under Standard Input Output Norms as given in Handbook 1997 -2002 Vol. 2. The petitioner did not fulfill the export obligation whereupon a notice dated 24th July, 2002 was issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Moradabad -respondent No. 2 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why it may not be presumed that you have committed default in fulfillment of 100% export obligation against the annual advance licence under reference. The date fixed was 7th August, 2002 on which date the petitioner applied for an adjournment on the ground that the Executive Partner had gone abroad and requested for hearing in the last week of September, 2002. The Joint Director General -respondent No. 2 after getting considerable period passed the impugned order on 26th February, 2003 treating the petitioner as defaulter. We have heard Sri A.P. Mathur learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the averments made in the writ petition and its annexures.

(2.) SRI A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the show cause notice dated 24th July, 2002 it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner could have been granted extension upto 31st March, 2003 provided a Bank Guarantee equivalent to the customs duty with 24% interest on unutilized exempt material is furnished. According to him action could have been taken only after 31st March, 2003 and not prior to that date. The submission is wholly misconceived. From a perusal of paragraph 7 of the notice dated 24th July, 2002 it is absolutely clear that time could be extended upto 31st March, 2003 in case the petitioner had furnished the Bank Guarantee for the required amount of customs duty with 24% interest and not otherwise. It is not the case of the petitioner that it had furnished requisite Bank Guarantee in terms of paragraph 7 of the notice. Thus, the authority concerned was justified in proceeding to take action against the petitioner before 31st March, 2003.

(3.) THE next submission of Sri Mathur is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. This is also incorrect. After issuance of notice dated 24th July, 2002 the petitioner had sought adjournment of the hearing on the ground that it's Executive Partner had gone abroad. Even after return of the Executive Partner, for the reasons best known, the petitioner did not submit any explanation nor furnish requisite Bank Guarantee in terms of paragraph 7 of the show cause notice. The petitioner has also failed to bring on record any material to show that the export obligation has been fulfilled before passing the impugned order. In this view of the matter we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 26th February, 2003. The writ petition is wholly misconceived which is hereby dismissed.