(1.) The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 17th June, 2008 and 31st July, 2008. It is the case of the petitioners that when all these orders were passed, no opportunity of hearing was given to them.
(2.) The petitioners have pointed out that they are merchant-exporters, engaged in the import and export of diverse goods including textiles. They were recognised as an export house by the Licensing Authorities while it is true that they have been importing raw materials without payment of custom duty against advance licence issued under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme obliging them to discharge an export obligation, they have duly discharged the same. They have not diverted any imported goods and duty free in the domestic market. However, proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent to this writ petition under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 ("FTDR Act"). That was in relation to the four advance licences, details of which are at page 6. A specific case of the petitioners is that these licences were not utilised by them either for import and consequently for export. The petitioners have set out the details as to how they sought a non-utilisation certificate but state that subsequent developments disabled them from producing the relevant and germane material. The subsequent adverse development being a petition for winding up presented against the petitioner. A Provisional Liquidator was appointed and the company continued under this Provisional Liquidator from 22nd March, 2007 until recently an order passed by this Court, a copy of which is set out at Annexure 8, page 45 of the paper-book.
(3.) Thus, a petition/application to recall the order dated 16th July, 2009 winding up the petitioner and that being recalled recently, it is submitted that the delay in presenting this petition is satisfactorily and reasonably explained.