MINAR EXPORTS Vs. ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) THE Petitioner has challenged a decision of the Enforcement Committee constituted under a notification issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Textiles on 12 November 1999 and confirmed in appeal by the Enforcement Appellate Committee. Under the decision, the Petitioner has been subjected to two demands; (i) A demand in the amount of Rs. 7.10 crores; and (ii) A demand in the amount of Rs. 3.81 crores on a finding of fact. The finding of fact is that (i) The Petitioner having obtained a quota and Visa under the GR I Category which was readily available without any premium, actually exported items covered under the GR II Category which was widely sought after and commanded a premium in the market by forging Visas obtained under the GR I category and making them appear as Visas obtained under GR II category; and (ii) Having obtained a quota under the GR II category, the Petitioner did not undertake actual exports but fabricated bank realisation certificates of the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank for establishing the utilization of the quota.

(3.) BY an order dated 23 November 2004 the Petitioner was temporarily debarred from making further exports pending investigation. Notices to show cause were issued to the Petitioner calling upon it to submit an explanation. During the course of the investigation, a letter was received on 20 December 2004 from the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank alleging that there was a serious fraud and that the bank realization certificates upon which the Petitioner had obtained endorsements, had not been issued by the Bank. On 13 June 2005, an order was passed by the 1st Respondent by which the Petitioner was barred from making any further exports for a period of three years commencing from 23 November 2004. This order was confirmed in appeal on 16 November 2005. The Petitioner moved this Court together with seven other related concerns in an earlier set of seven petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.