HIRA EXPORTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's name was entered in what is described as the Denied Entities List'. Provision for such a list is under rule 7 of the Foreign Trade Regulation Rules, 1993. It is the case of the petitioner that they were not given an opportunity before their name was included in the list. The effect of the name appearing in the Denied Entities List' has civil consequences. They were also not-given an opportunity of being heard before their name was entered in the Denied Entities List.'

(2.) On behalf of the revenue, Mr. A. S. Shinde, Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade has filed an affidavit. It is his contention that name of the petitioner was kept under "Denied Entities List" on 12th May, 2006 on the basis of a letter, dated 25th March, 2004 by the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Raigad who by his letter and/or communication reported that the petitioner was engaging in fraudulent exports. It is contended that the guidelines for maintaining the list are incorporated in the circular dated 31st December, 2003. The reasons for placing the petitioner's name in the Denied Entities List was also passed at the behest of the Director General of Foreign Trade. We have now been given the reasons which reads as under : The letters received from the DRI, Raigad says that the office of the DRI on booking of the above case issued alert against various exporters for withholding their drawback/DEPB till completion of the verification of the authenticity of their exports.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The relevant para is para 2 of the guidelines for maintaining the Denied Entities List' The same reads as under :