w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rich Source International, rep. by its Proprietor v/s The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U10100WB1980PLC204139

Company & Directors' Information:- RICH INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300TN1998PTC041042

Company & Directors' Information:- D R TRADE AND COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2007PTC113527

Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL COMMERCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U41404DL1973PLC006514

Company & Directors' Information:- K SOURCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TN2004PTC052946

Company & Directors' Information:- E. SOURCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL1998PTC095799

Company & Directors' Information:- RICH 'N' RICH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990TN2012PTC085010

Company & Directors' Information:- K-SOURCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TG2015FTC097951

    W.P.No.15805 of 2008

    Decided On, 09 January 2009

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN

    For the Petitioner : Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel, M/s. C. Uma, Advocate. For the Respondents: P. Chandrasekaran Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in its order dated 29.05.2008 having reference No.11/78/07-08/ECA.I/867/183 to 185 confirming the Cancellation Order dated 05.04.207 having Ref.No.04/21/76/0043/AM07 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to immediately issue the Post Export Transferable Duty Free Import Authorisation license to the petitioner for the value of Rs.24,64,948.90 with validity of 24 months from the date of issue of the Duty Free Import Authorisation within the stipulated time.)


This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 29.05.2008, confirming the Cancellation Order dated 05.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent and to direct the 2nd respondent to immediately issue the Post Export Transferable Duty Free Import Authorisation license to the petitioner for the value of Rs.24,64,948.90 with validity of 24 months from the date of issue of the Duty Free Import Authorisation.


2. The case of the petitioner as stood exposited from the affidavit is, as under:


(i) The petitioner is a entrepreneur engaged in the business of export of garments and fabrics for the past five years. She claims to be a registered Manufacturer-Exporter of garments and a registered Merchant-Exporter of fabrics. As per the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) Scheme introduced by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce to encourage small exporters, the petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent herein on 09.06.2006 for availing the licence under the scheme and the 2nd respondent issued licence to the petitioner under the said scheme having No.0410082359 for Rs.24,69,901/- on 22.06.2006. As it is necessary for any manufacturer/exporter of garments to become a member in Apparel Exporters Promotion Council (AEPC) and any exporter of fabrics to become a member in Federation of Indian Exporters Organisation (FIEO), the petitioner became a member of both the councils. In this regard, the petitioner by a letter dated 07.06.2006 to the 2nd respondent had clarified that she is also a merchant-exporter apart from being a manufacturer-exporter and for that purpose, she had obtained RCMC (Registration Cum Membership Certificate) from FIEO for multi product exports. Thereafter, the petitioner, by letter dated 28.06.2006 to the 2nd respondent, requested for the transferability of DFIA licence as she had completed the export obligation and received the Foreign Inward Remittance against her exports even before applying for DFIA licence as per 4.72 of FTP. By another letter dated 06.07.2006 to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has stated that she has not imported anything or procured domestic goods and that she has completed the export obligation.


(ii) The FTDO (Foreign Trade Development Officer), by its letter dated 07.07.2006 requested the petitioner for certain documents for waiver of the registered DFIA license No.0410082359 dated 22.06.2006. The petitioner, by letter dated 10.07.2006 to the 2nd respondent, replied to all the queries raised by JDGFT in its letter dated 09.06.2006 and requested them to issue the licence with the transferability/EODC/Bond Waiver. Accordingly, on 11.07.2006, Bond Waiver and transferability for DFIA licence was granted to the petitioner. By a letter dated 12.07.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, the petitioner enclosed the DFIA licence along with the other essential documents for the purpose of verification by the customs authorities. After verification, the customs authorities returned back the documents to the petitioner for transfer in the market. The 2nd respondent, by letter dated 03.08.2006, asked the petitioner to surrender the DFIA licence, as the 1st respondent found that the requisite details of the supporting manufacturer were not submitted by the petitioner and that the DFIA licence was issued inadvertently. In this regard, the petitioner, on 08.08.2006, met the DGFT, at Delhi and asked for the policy clarification of 4.4.2 of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and 4.5.5 and Hand Book of Procedure 2004-09 (HBP).


(iii) The 1st respondent clarified the position and issued the clarification letter dated 11.08.2006 stating that when an exporter seeks export obligation, redemption and endorsement of transferability, documentary evidences such as SSI registration etc. from the supporting manufacturer/jobber need not be insisted upon and the copy of the same clarification will be sent to the 2nd respondent as a policy circular. On 14.08.2006, the petitioner met the 2nd respondent and submitted a copy of the letter dated 11.08.2006 issued by the 1st respondent regarding the clarification. The 2nd respondent JDGFT, Chennai refused to consider the letter dated 11.08.2006 issued by the 1st respondent and stated that unless it comes under the policy circular, the clarification will not be considered. Thereafter, on 24.08.2006, the Policy Circular No.17 (RE-2006)/2004-09 was issued to the effect that in cases, wherein the exporters seek redemption and transferability of DFIA on completion of the stipulated export obligation, documentary evidence such as SSI registration etc. in respect of supporting manufacturer/jobber may not be insisted upon.


(iv) On 25.08.2006, the petitioner went to the office of the 2nd respondent and met the Zonal Director personally and stated that in view of the clarification issued by Circular No.17, dated 24.08.2006, the DFIA was properly issued and since no tie-up arrangement with the supporting manufacturer was necessary, the name and address of the manufacturer was sufficient. But, the 2nd respondent ignored the representation of the petitioner and again referred the matter to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by letter dated 13.11.2006 informed the 2nd respondent that the policy Circular No.17 is consistent with the provisions of the current policy as well as the customs notification regarding DFIA scheme. The petitioner, by letter dated 14.11.2006 to the 2nd respondent referred to the letter dated 13.11.2006 issued by the 1st respondent and submitted the name and address of the supporting manufacturer as Naveen Textiles, Surat, whose dealer was Sanjri Tex, Surat. The 2nd respondent, by his letter dated 22.11.2006 asked the petitioner to surrender the original licence on the ground that it was issued in contravention of the provisions of para 4.4.2 of the Export Import Policy 2005-2009.


(v) Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.02.2007 under Section 9 of the Foreign Trade Development and Regulations Act, 1992 stating that the petitioner had procured the fabric from the traders and not from a manufacturer. The petitioner met the 2nd respondent on 27.03.2007 and 01.03.2007 and submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, that it is not required to submit the tie-up arrangement with a supporting manufacturer since all the three clarificatory letters and circulars issued by the 1st respondent are self-explanatory. The 2nd respondent ignored all the explanations, clarificatory letters and the circulars issued by the 1st respondent and issued a cancellation order dated 05.04.2007 for non-compliance with para 4.4.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy.


(vi) Aggrieved by the cancellation order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 30.04.2007 as prescribed in the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent disposed of the appeal, by order dated 04.10.2007, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said arbitrary order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.34894 of 2007 before this court to quash the same and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to immediately issue the Post Export Transferable Duty Free Import Authorisation to her with validity of 24 months from the date of issuance of the Duty Free Import Authorisation. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.04.2008, holding that the appellate authority has not applied its mind while passing an order in the appeal and that the policy circular only states that documentary evidence need not be insisted upon and the authorisation holder has to only disclose the names and addresses of the supporting manufacturers for the issuance of post Export DFIA. The order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the 1st respondent was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the 1st respondent with a direction to consider the said issue specifically raised in the appeal and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. But, the 1st respondent, by order dated 29.05.2008 again dismissed the appeal, refusing to interfere with the cancellation order dated 05.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent. Having no other alternative, the petitioner is once again before this court with the present writ petition.


3. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the exporter is entitled for authorisation only if he complies with the requisite formalities and therefore, the Duty Free Import Authorisation has to conform to the relevant provisions of the policy and Customs Notification. As per the provision of para 4.4.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy, it is very clear that the authorisation can be issued either to a manufacturer Exporter or a merchant Exporter tied to a supporting manufacturer. According to the respondents, the petitioner has procured the items from some trader and is trying to bring in misleading provisions. The petitioner has claimed her category as "Manufacturer Exporter" not only in the E.Commerce (Online Application) but also in the manual application submitted by her. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner herself has stated that she has exported the goods by procuring them from the open market (dealers) and that the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) obtained was not in conformity with para 4.4.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy and the relevant customs notification, which was noticed at the time of scrutiny of export documents later. Hence the action taken was in order.


3a. The respondents have further stated that the Policy Circular No.17, dated 24.08.2006, exempted submission of documentary evidence of supporting manufacturer, but the petitioner has obtained goods not from a manufacturer but from a trader, which is violative of the provisions of the Policy and Customs Notification. According to the respondents, the 2nd respondent had rightfully asked the licensee/applicant to surrender the licence as it was in contravention of the provisions of para 4.4.2 of the Policy. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the cancellation order, dated 05.04.2007 and the Appellate Authority considered the appeal and issued the order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner was found guilty of mis-representation of facts with regard to manufacturer or exporter and it could not furnish the details of manufacturer on demand and it did not follow the directions of the competent authority.


3b. It is also the case of the respondents that the requirement of furnishing documentary proof of the Small Scale Industries Unit/Central Excise Registration Certificate does not arise in the case of the petitioner, since it is a clear case of mis-declaration for availing the benefit of Duty Free Import Authorisation Scheme, which is meant for a genuine exporter as framed by the Foreign Trade Policy. The respondents further stated that the petitioner's mis-declaration in the application and the consequential availment of authorisation to the tune of Rs.24,64,948.90 against export of Polyester Fabrics done by S.Bill No.2365869 dated 10.06.2006 is illegal.


4. Heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.


5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent passed the cancellation order without appreciating the difference between Pre-export DFIA and post export DFIA. According to the Senior Counsel, the 1st respondent failed to appreciate the erroneous reasonings in the order of the 2nd respondent and refused to set aside the said order. She further contended that the 1st respondent, in the order dated 04.10.2007 correctly set out the various policy directives in para 3.2, but failed to refer to the letter dated 14.11.2006 given by the petitioner, in which the name and address of the supporting manufacturer was given as Naveen Textiles. It is also her contention that the 1st respondent gave a perverse finding that the issue covered by the appeal is relating to export of fabrics and therefore, SSI Regulation Certificate held by the petitioner for 'garments' is neither relevant nor acceptable for the DFIAs. In support of her contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1986 (2) SCC 679 (Comptroller and Auditor General of India vs. K.S.Jagannathan), relevant paragraphs of which would run thus:


18. The first contention urged by learned counsel for the appellants was that the Division Bench of the High Court could not issue a writ of mandamus to direct a public authority to exercise its discretion in a particular manner. There is a basic fallacy underlying this submission ? both with respect to the order of the Division Bench and the purpose and scope of the writ of mandamus. The High Court had not issued a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus was the relief prayed for by the respondents in their writ petition. What the Division Bench did was to issue directions to the appellants in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, every High Court has the power to issue to any person or authority , including in appropriate cases, any government, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, directions, orders, or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto and certiorari or any of them, for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose. In Dwaranath vs. ITO (1965 (3) SCR 536), this court pointed out that Article 226 is designedly couched in a wide language in order not to confine the power conferred by it only to the power to issue prerogative writs as understood in England, such wide language being used to enable the High Courts "to reach injustice where it is found" and "to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country." In Hochtief Gammon vs. State of Orissa, this court held that the powers of the courts in England as regards the control which the Judiciary has over the Executive indicate the minimum limit to which the courts in this country would be prepared to go in considering the validity of orders passed by the government or its officers.


20. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or an irrelevant considerations as by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties , the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. "


6. In reply, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the interpretation made by the petitioner about pre-export Duty Free Import Authorisation and Post Export Duty Free Import Authorisation are misleading. It is the further case of the learned counsel that the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) provision as it existed on the announcement on 01.04.2006 did not provide for any such classification of pre-export DFIA and post-export DFIA. According to the learned counsel, the tie-up requirement as stated in para 4.4.2 and the necessity of the Merchant Exporter to export the goods obtained from such manufacturer exporter is necessary to qualify under the scheme; in the absence of it and as the petitioner herself has stated that the goods have been obtained from the trader in very clear terms, the petitioner's claim cannot be considered. To support his case, learned counsel has relied on the following decisions :


(i) 1996 (2) SCC 439 (S.B.International Ltd. and others vs. Asst. Director General of Foreign Trade and others)


9. It should be noticed that grant of licence is neither a mechanical exercise nor a formality. On receipt of the application, the authorities have to satisfy themselves about the correctness of the contents of the application. They also have to satisfy themselves that the application satisfies all the requirements of the scheme and the other applicable provisions of law, if any. In a country like ours, where abuse of such facilities is rampant, reasonable time has to be afforded to the authorities to process the application (What is a reasonable time, of course, depends on the facts of each case. No hard and fast limit can be prescribed.) It is only after appropriate verification that the licence is granted.


(ii) 2004 (2) SC 56 (Prabha Shankar Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)


"12. The use of the expression "substantial compliance" was made in the background that the searching officer had Section 50 in mind and ti was unaided by the interpretation placed on it by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case. A line or a word in a judgment cannot be read in isolation or as if interpreting a statutory provision, to impute a different meaning to the observations."


7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the decisions relied on by them; also perused and materials available on record.


8. It is seen that the petitioner had applied to the 2nd respondent herein on 09.06.2006 for licence as per the DFIA scheme and that the 2nd respondent had issued licence to her on 22.06.2006. The petitioner also became a member of AEPC and FIEO, as stipulated. By letter dated 28.06.2006 to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner had requested for transferability of DFIA licence. However, by letter dated 06.07.2006 to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has stated that she has not imported anything or produced domestic goods and that she has completed the export obligation in anticipation of DFIA.


9. It is further seen that the FTDO, by letter dated 07.07.2006, requested the petitioner to furnish documents for a waiver of the registered DFIA licence dated 22.06.2006 and the petitioner, by letter dated 10.07.2006 to the 2nd respondent, replied to all the queries raised by the JDGFT in its letter dated 09.06.2006 and requested them to issue the licence with transferability/EODC/Bond Waiver. After requisite verifications, the Foreign Trade Development Officer granted Bond Waiver and transferability for DFIA licence to the petitioner on 11.07.2006. Thereafter, for the purpose of customs verification, the petitioner, by letter dated 12.07.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, enclosed the DFIA licence along with the other essential documents and the customs authorities, after verification, returned back the documents to the petitioner for transfer in the market. But, the 2nd respondent, by letter dated 03.08.2006, asked the petitioner to surrender the DFIA licence, as the 1st respondent found that the requisite details of the supporting manufacturer was not submitted by the petitioner and that the DFIA was issued inadvertently. Pursuant to that, the petitioner met the DGFT at Delhi on 08.08.2006 and asked for policy clarification of 4.4.2 of FTP and 4.5.5 and Hand Book of Procedure 2004-09(HBP) and the 1st respondent clarified the position vide his letter dated 11.08.2006. According to the 1st respondent, when an exporter seeks export obligation, redemption and endorsement of transferability, documentary evidences such as SSI registration, etc. from the supporting manufacturer need not be insisted upon.


10. In reference to the letter dated 13.11.2006 issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner, by letter dated 14.11.2006 to the 2nd respondent submitted the name and address of the supporting manufacturer as M/s.Naveen Textiles, Surat, whose dealer was M/s.Sanjri Tex, Surat. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.02.2007 to the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act, stating that she had procured fabrics from a trader and not from a manufacturer. Despite all explanations and clarificatory letters on the side of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued a Cancellation Order dated 05.04.2007 for non-compliance of para 4.4.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy. Since the petitioner's appeal before the 1st respondent seeking to quash the Cancellation Order passed by the 2nd respondent did not come to her rescue, the petitioner approached this court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.34894 of 2007 and this court, by order dated 30.04.2008 disposed of the matter with the following observation:


"10. From the perusal of the order of the first respondent which is passed under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade Policy, I am of the view that the first respondent has not applied his mind while passing an order in the appeal. The contention of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner being a SSI Unit is required to submit the names and addresses of supporting manufacturers and the documentary evidence such as SSI/Central Excess Registration of supporting manufacturers are also required to be produced by the petitioner is not decided. From the perusal of the circular dated 13.11.2006 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, it is evident that the policy circular only states that documentary evidence need not be insisted upon and the authorisation holder has to only disclose the names and addresses of the supporting manufacturers for the post Export DFIA. Hence, the order of the appellate authority is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the said issue specifically raised in the appeal and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."


11. Though this court, by the above order had set aside the Cancellation Order passed by the 2nd respondent and remitted the matter to the appellate authority, the 1st respondent herein, with a direction to consider the issue specifically raised in the appeal, the 1st respondent, by order dated 29.05.2008, dismissed the appeal for the reasons that (i) the petitioner has herself admitted that she is a manufacturer-exporter of garments only and in the present case, she had obtained DFIA for the export of fabrics only and not garments (ii) as a merchant exporter of fabrics, the petitioner is obligated to supply the details of manufacturer (iii) the petitioner is not entitled for DFIA as a fabric exporter, since no details of manufacturer are given and (iv) Policy Circular No.17 dated 24.08.2006 stipulates that only a manufacturer-exporter/merchant-exporter tied up with a particular manufacturer are not to submit details of manufacturer (as it is already either tied or itself is a manufacturer).


12. Once again, aggrieved by the fresh order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is before this court. It is the case of the petitioner that as per clause 4.4.2 of the DFIA scheme, in case of post-export DFIA, a merchant exporter shall be required to mention only name and address of the manufacturer of the export product and the applicant is required to file application to the concerned RA before effecting exports under DFIA. While so, it is the case of the respondents that as per the provision of para 4.4.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy, authorisation licence can be issued to a manufacturer exporter or a merchant exporter tied to a supporting manufacturer; in the absence of tie-up arrangement with a supporting manufacturer, the DFIA licence was wrongly issued to the petitioner, since it was not in conformity with the DFIA scheme. The respondents substantiate their case that the petitioner is not eligible for DFIA licence as she had obtained goods from a trader and not from a manufacturer, which is in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. According to them, the Policy Circular No.17 and other clarificatory letters issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) only reiterate about giving exemption for documentary evidence in respect of supporting manufacturers. Above all, as a merchant exporter of fabrics, it is necessary for the petitioner to have tie-up with a supporting manufacturer of fabrics, as qualified under the scheme; in the absence of any tie-up and as the petitioner herself has stated that the goods have been obtained from a trader, her claim ought not to be considered.


13. Looking into the merits of the case, the question whether the respondents have considered the matter in the light of the Foreign Trade Policy and the circulars has to be considered in the light of the factual matrix. A reading of the Cancellation Order passed by the 2nd respondent/original authority would show that the DFIA licence was issued under para 4.4.2 of the FTP, where the petitioner has failed to furnish the details of the supporting manufacturer, since the DFIA licence was issued on the understanding that the petitioner was a "Merchant Exporter" for the export product for which she does not possess an RCMC for the export product as per her application. But, what is understood from the affidavit of the petitioner is that the petitioner has obtained RCMC from FIEO for multi- product exports. In the Cancellation Order, the 2nd respondent has also stated that the petitioner has obtained the DFIA licence without fulfilling the conditions stipulated in para 4.4.2 of the FTP, by mis-declaring the facts. The appellate authority has upheld the view of the original authority by holding that the petitioner is a manufacturer-exporter of garments only, but in the case on hand, they have exported fabrics and not garments and obtained DFIA. The main ground on which both the authorities have dismissed the plea of the petitioner is that, inspite of the obligation to provide the details of the supporting manufacturer, the petitioner, as a merchant-exporter of fabrics has failed to give the details and hence, the firm is not entitled for DFIA.


14. As per Section 15 of the Act, the appellate authority, may after giving to the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, if he so desires, and after making such further inquiries, if any, as it may consider necessary, make such orders as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or reversing the decision or order appealed against, or may send back the case with such directions as it may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may, be after taking additional evidence if necessary. Provided, that an order enhancing or imposing a penalty or redemption charges or confiscating goods of a greater value shall not be made under this section unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of making a representation, and if he so desires of being heard in his defence.


15. On reading of the above provision, it is vivid that the appellant authority/first respondent had acted in the manner contemplated under the Act, while disposing of the appeal. It is not the case of the petitioner that the appellate authority has not followed any of the provisions as contemplated under the Act. An analytical view of the matter would reveal that the issue which raises concern is the name of the supporting manufacturer with whom the petitioner had tie-up with regard to the export of fabrics.


16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had applied for licence and it was granted to her after proper verification, the second respondent cancelled the same. She contended that a mere statement in the affidavit that the petitioner had purchased goods from a trader and not from a manufacturer cannot be a ground to decide this matter. She relied on a Supreme Court ruling in K.S.Jaganathan's case, wherein it is stated that, when a public authority wrongly exercises the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials, a High court is empowered to issue a writ of mandamus in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties.


17. As per the Policy Circular No.17 dated 24.08.2006, for exporters who seek redemption and transferability of DFIA on completion of the stipulated export obligation, documentary evidence in respect of supporting manufacturer is not insisted upon. Accordingly, the petitioner has given the name and address of the supporting manufacturer as M/s.Naveen Textiles, Surat. But, the petitioner herself has stated in the affidavit that she has procured the materials for export from a trader, namely, M/s.Sanjri Tex, Surat. While that be so, the question which immediately arises for consideration is that when the petitioner has procured goods from a trader, how can she give the name and address of a manufacturer, who has no direct dealing with the petitioner. The second respondent, mainly relying on this ground, has cancelled the DFIA licence issued to the petitioner. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal in the light of the power conferred under Section 15 of the Act and in view of the Foreign Trade Policy.


18. A question was raised claiming benefit of the Policy Circular No.17, dated 24.08.2006, whereby, for the exporters, who seek redemption and transferability of the scheme on completion of the stipulated export obligation, documentary evidence in respect of supporting manufacturer is not insisted upon. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has applied for the benefit of the scheme on 09.06.2006 and based on the same a licence was granted on 22.06.2006. However, the petitioner enclosed the essential document for the purpose of verification of the customs authority on 12.07.2006 and the same was verified and found that the requisite details

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of supporting manufacturer were not furnished. Therefore, the 2nd respondent, who is the original authority, cancelled the licence and directed the petitioner to surrender the same on 03.08.2006. The grant of licence was based on the Foreign Trade Policy No.4.4.2, which is the basic policy guideline. Hence, any policy circular issued thereafter or the clarification made by the respondents cannot override the policy guidelines of Foreign Trade Policy, thereby deriving advantage of the benefit of the scheme by the petitioner. Therefore, the policy circular and the clarifications are later to the granting and cancellation of licence, which will have no support to the claim of the petitioner. Foreign Trade Policy is the basis principle, on which the DFIA Scheme has been framed and as such the requirement has to be complied with based thereon. In the absence of any such non-furnishing of the required document, the decision of the authority cannot be faulted with, which is in accordance with law. 19. The grant of licence is based on the correctness of the contents of the application and it should satisfy all the requirements of the scheme and other applicable provisions of law. When a scheme is available, that should be extended to a person who satisfies the requirement of the scheme. Therefore, the concept of grant of licence under a scheme as well as the Foreign Trade Policy and the circular has to be interpreted in order to achieve the object of providing the benefit under the scheme to the deserving persons. 20. In the instant case, it is seen that both the original authority as well as the appellate authority have exercised their powers in accordance with law and fairly and reasonably considered the policy decision and the petitioner's entitlement of the benefits under the scheme. They have considered all the relevant factors and exercised their powers and discretion in such a manner as those eligible alone are benefited under the scheme. The petitioner herein has not proved her case for entitlement of the benefit under the DFIA scheme and the authorities have rightly looked into the matter and accordingly cancelled the DFIA licence granted to the petitioner. 21. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not made out a case for claim of DFIA licence for the export of fabrics. The details given by the petitioner that M/s.Naveen Textiles, Surat is their supporting manufacturer for the export of fabrics cannot be taken into account as she herself has admitted that she has procured the materials from a trader in the open market, whose manufacturer is M/s.Naveen Textiles. Therefore, when the petitioner has no direct contact or tie-up with the said manufacturer, namely, M/s.Naveen Textiles, she is not supposed to specify the name of the said manufacturer. In such view of the matter and in the absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, I find no reason to interfere with the said order. However, it is made clear that this order shall not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the competent authorities by producing necessary documents in support of her claim, in which event the authorities concerned are directed to consider the request of the petitioner taking into account the object of the scheme, if the documents are in order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above observation and direction. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
17-02-2020 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary to Government, M/o.Commerce & Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Versus Rema Srinivasan Iyengar, Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks & GI, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2019 M/s. Kawarlal & Co., Chennai, By its Proprietor K. Ramlal Jain Versus Joint Director General of Foreign Trade O/o. The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, 'Kendriya Sadan", Koramangala, Bangalore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2019 M/s. Rajni Exports & Imports, Rep. By its Partner, Rajiv Naaram & Another Versus The Director General of Foreign Trade Ministry of Commerce & Industries, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2019 Fabrica de Gas Carbonico Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Director, The Directorate of Industries, Trade & Commerce, Government of Goa & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
16-09-2019 M/s. Manali Petrochemical Limited, Represented by is Head (Accounts), E.N. Rangaswami, Chennai Versus The Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-04-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited & Another Versus International Commerce Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-01-2019 International Commerce Limited & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-12-2018 Vynova Wilhelmshaven Gmbh Versus Designated Authority Directorate General of Anti-Dumping And Allied Duties, Department Of Commerce & Another High Court of Delhi
11-07-2018 International Commerce Limited Versus Government of India, Ministry of Steel, through its Secretary Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-12-2017 Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Employees? Union (Affiliated to Rashtriya Shramik Congress) & Others Versus State of Maharashtra Trade Commerce & Mining Department Mantralaya, Through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-12-2017 Same Deutz-FahrIndia (P) Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Signatory, S. Thamilselvan, Ranipet Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Department of Foreign Trade, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2017 The Southern India Mills Association, rep. by its Secretary General, Dr. K. Selvaraju & Another Versus The Additional Secretary & Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-dumping & Allied Duties (DGAD) Department of Commerce & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-07-2017 CCE, Gurgaon V/S Rich Micro Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
07-02-2017 Satpal, Rajasthan Housing Board Colony, District Sri Ganganagar Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce, through the General Manager, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
18-10-2016 J. John Rich Premkumar Versus Usha Devi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
31-08-2016 Rich Field Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Bank of India High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-05-2016 International Commerce Limited & Another Versus The Steel Authority of India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-12-2015 State Bank of India represented by its Chief Manager, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Coimbatore Versus The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-10-2015 M/s. Sudarsanam Industries, Through its Proprietrix R. Latha, Virudhunagar District Versus The Joint Director, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-08-2015 Alliance Grain Products (P) Ltd., Kollam represented by its General Manager, M. Ameenuddin Versus Director of Industries & Commerce, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-07-2015 Richi Rich Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Bank of India & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-07-2015 Rich Udyog Network Ltd. Versus Chief Commissioner of Income-tax High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-01-2015 Kamino International Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. Q. Rich Creations Rep.by its Managing Partner Ramasamy & Others Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
17-07-2014 M/s. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company Ltd. Versus Xplore Source Consultancy Services Pvt. Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
28-05-2014 M/s. Value Source Mercantile Ltd. Versus M/s. Span Mechnotronix Ltd. High Court of Delhi
17-04-2014 Richie Rich Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus State Bank of Patiala Debts Recovery Appealate Tribunal at Delhi
14-03-2014 Andhra Pradesh Federation of Chambers of Commerce & Trade Versus Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
22-10-2013 Rich Capital & Financial Services Limited (Now known as Rich Universe Network Ltd) & Another Versus Adjudicating Officer, The Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
07-08-2013 Baba Bhootnath Trade & Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Versus Baba Bhootnath Trade & Commerce Pvt. Ltd. SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
06-05-2013 Indian Exhibition Industry Association Versus Ministry of Commerce & Industry India Trade Promotion Organization Competition Commission of India
14-11-2012 Rich Capital & Financial Services Limited & Others Versus Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
07-08-2012 State of Gujarat Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited Versus The Additional Secretary & Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping & Allied Duties, Department of Commerce, Government of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-05-2012 Kuehne + Nagel International Ag Versus Commerce Commission Court of Appeal of New Zealand
18-01-2012 In Re. Jaiswal Trade & Commerce (Pvt.) Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-11-2011 Deepa Trade & Commerce Ltd & Another Versus Raj Bhalla High Court of Delhi
15-02-2011 M/s.Arunsaran Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2010 State of H.P. Versus Rich Pal Singh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
19-07-2010 M/s. Kalash Traders Private Limited Versus The General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, SSI Branch & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-02-2010 Rich Products Corporation & Another Versus Indo Nippon Food Ltd. High Court of Delhi
16-12-2009 M/s. Sidhi Smelters Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director & Others Versus Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2009 The Best Source Restaurant Pte Ltd Versus Wan Chai Capital Holdings Pte Ltd Supreme Court of Singapore
13-10-2009 Suryovonics Ltd. Versus Union Of India, Ministry Of Commerce, Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, New Delhi Rep. By Additional Director General Of Foreign Trade & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
05-08-2009 Arora Fibres Ltd. Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-01-2009 Multiplex Association of India C/o Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry Krishnamai Building Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission World Trade Centre & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
29-10-2008 Ramasamy Athappan & Another Versus The Secretariat of the Court, International Chamber of Commerce & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-12-2007 M.B. RaviKumar Versus Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2007 Rich Products Corporation Versus Indo Nippon Foods Ltd. High Court of Delhi
03-11-2006 Analytica (India) Private Limited Versus IT Source LLC & Another High Court of Karnataka
07-07-2006 Dolphin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Versus C. Pinto Trade Commerce Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-12-2005 The Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Versus Richi Rich Traders Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
07-12-2004 Director General of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi 1 and another Versus R. B. & Sons, rep. by its Proprietor, Ishwarchand B ,Tater, 44/2B, Ekambareswarar Agraharam, Sowcarpet, Chennai 3 and another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2004 M/s. R.B.& Sons Versus Director General of Foreign Trade Udyog Bhawan, Ministry of Commerce & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2003 General Commerce Limited Versus National Insurance Company Limited High Court of Delhi
13-03-2003 Mahavir Mirror Industries, rep. by its Proprietor and another Versus The Designated Authority Director General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, New Delhi, and 2 others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-10-2002 Supercom India Limited Versus Directorate General Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce High Court of Delhi
15-05-2002 Sree Karpagambal Mills Limited, Regd. Office: Cholapuram, South P.O., Near Rajapalaym, Virudhunagar District, Tamil Nadu, represented by its Managing Director and another Versus Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi 110 011 through the Designated Authority and others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2001 Inder Mohan Rishi Versus Assistant General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce & Another Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
01-03-2001 Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA Versus Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan & Others House of Lords
12-06-1997 Malik & Another Versus Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. House of Lords
27-08-1996 GIMPEX LIMITED, REP. BY R. GANAPATHY, GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS), MADRAS VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD High Court of Andhra Pradesh
16-01-1996 Orientel Bank Of Commerce Versus Remko International High Court of Delhi
06-07-1995 Marc Rich & Co. A.G. (Body Corporate) & Others Versus Bishop Rock Marine Co. Ltd. (Body Corporate) & Others House of Lords
29-03-1995 Commerce International Versus Collector of Customs Supreme Court of India
12-11-1993 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS JOINT PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATORS BANK OF CREDIT, COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) LTD. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-1992 Reserve Bank of India Versus Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. & another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-02-1992 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) LTD. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-11-1989 GENERAL COMMERCE LIMITED VERSUS APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL High Court of Delhi
09-09-1986 Indian Commerce And Industries Co.Pvt.Ltd., Regd.Office At Broadway Madras, M.L.Manohar, Authorised Director Of Company Versus Union Of India, General Manager, S.C.Railway, Secunderabad High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-04-1960 Suraj Prasad Saxena Versus Manager Abbie Rich Higher Secondary School, Shahjahanpur High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-1947 Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee & Others Versus Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna & The Advocate-General of Bengal, Intervener Privy Council
11-02-1947 Bank of Commerce, Ltd. Khulna Versus Amulya Krishna Basu Roy Chowdhury & Others, Advocate-General of Bengal, Intervener. Privy Council