Quashed

Indiana Conveyors Limited v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2007WP/147/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Bombay High Court quashed the original order dated 23.12.2004 and remanded the matter to the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade to decide the issues afresh after affording a personal hearing, as the show cause notice failed to raise specific issues regarding deemed exports.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 23.12.2004 was quashed and the matter remanded to the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade to decide afresh after a personal hearing.

Indiana Conveyors Limited Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.147 OF 2007

¶4

 M/s.Indiana Conveyors Ltd. .. Petitioner.

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶7

 Mr.Sridharan with Mr.Prakash Shah with
 Mr.Vishwanathan i/by PDS Legal for the petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.S.M. Shah with Mrs.Neeta Masurkar for the
 respondents.

¶9

CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2007.
P.C. :

¶11

 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶12

 2. By consent of the parties, taken up for

¶13

 final hearing. The learned counsel for the

¶14

 respondents waive service.

¶15

 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
 the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶16

 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶17

 states that though the petitioner challenges the
 order in original dated 23rd December, 2004 and the

¶18

¶19

 order passed by the appellate authority dated 3rd
 August, 2006, the petitioner is restricting the
 challenge only with regard to the order in original.
 In asmuch as the main contention of the petitioner
 is that the original show cause notice issued to the
 petitioner did not raise any issue with regard to
 counting of deemed exports and also the issue of
 fulfilment of average export obligation, whereas the
 order in original in para 8 deals with the issue
 with regard to ‘without counting the deemed export’
 and also ‘the average export obligation’. The
 contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
 is that if this was indicated in the show cause
 notice, the petitioner would have been able to
 satisfy the authorities that even without the deemed
 export, the petitioner has actually fulfilled all
 the export obligations.

¶20

 4. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances
 of the case and admittedly the show cause notice did
 not raise the above issues. Though the petitioner
 was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, he
 was not put to notice with regard to the aforesaid
 issues in the said show cause notice.

¶21

 5. Hence, on this limited ground, we are
 inclined to quash and set aside the order in

¶22

¶23

 original dated 23rd December, 2004 and remand the
 matter back to the Joint Director General of Foreign
 Trade to decide the entire issue afresh after
 affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the
 petitioner.

¶24

 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no

¶25

 order as to costs.

¶26

 (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

¶27

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Indiana Conveyors Limited v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indiana Conveyors Limited v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

smt hirakani sanatkumar dixit and Ors. Vs shri ramchandra ganpat mimbalkar and Anr.

smt hirakani santkkumar dixit and Ors. Vs shri ramchandra ganpat nimbalka and Anr.

Godrej Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax City-X, Mumbai

M/S. Vikas Utilities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Jagdish Chandra Gupta Vs Union of India and Anr.

Comm. of Customs Preventi Ve New Custom House Vs Sadaiya Padayachi Sivakotundu