M/S.Freeze Exim vs Foreign Trade Development Officer

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 23, 2020

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1845388

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1845388
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique,Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph
Decided On: Jan 23, 2020
Case Number: WA/18/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S.Freeze Exim

Respondent

Foreign Trade Development Officer

Excerpt

.....quantum of amount involved in payment of customs duty.3. the learned single judge by the impugned judgmentobserved that, in so far as there is no jurisdictional error and there is an appellate remedy, the petitioners will have to approach the appellate authority.4. the learned counsel for the appellants would submit thatthe director general of foreign trade (dgft) have no power to direct recovery of any amount and that even if an appeal is filed, it will not be efficacious. it is submitted that the dgft has already taken a stand on similar issues and therefore, it is stated that the alternative remedy is not efficacious. we don't think so. when an alternative remedy is provided, the petitioners will have to approach the appellate authority and thereafter, if orders are against them, they can definitely approach the next forum. each case depends upon its own facts. under such circumstances, we don't think it appropriate to entertain the writ appeals. the petitioners are directed to prefer an appeal. of course, the appellate authority, while considering the appeal, shall take into consideration all available contentions raised by the petitioners. the appeals shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today. the writ appeals are disposed of as above. sd/- a.m.shaffique judge sd/- mary joseph kp true copy judge p.a. to judge

Full Judgment

& WA.No.16 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.12.2019 IN WP(C) 33461/2019(G) OF DOLPHIN WIRES PVT. LTD AP II/722 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AROOR, ALLEPPEY-688 534, REPRESENTED BUY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. JABIR K.A. SMT.R.DEVIKA SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR SMT.SRI HARINI S.P. FOREIGN TRADE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 5TH FLOOR, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037.

BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: & WA.No.17 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.12.2019 IN WP(C) 33443/2019(E) OF M/S.FRONTLINE EXPORTS PVT.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI. NIYAS KOYA. SMT.R.DEVIKA (ALAPPUZHA) SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR SMT.SRI HARINI S.P.

KUM.S.KRISHNA, CGC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2020, ALONG WITH WA.16/2020, WA.18/2020, WA.19/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: & WA.No.18 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.12.2019 IN WP(C) 33432/2019(D) OF M/S.FREEZE EXIM XII/1001-C, PANAYAPILLY, KOCHI-682 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI. M.USMAN KOYA. SMT.R.DEVIKA (ALAPPUZHA)

FOREIGN TRADE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, 5TH FLOOR, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037. BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2020, ALONG WITH WA.16/2020, WA.17/2020, WA.19/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: & WA.No.19 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.12.2019 IN WP(C) 33431/2019(D) OF A.S.MARINE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AP.2/268 SHANA MARINE PRODUCTS BUILDING, ALLEPPEY- 688 534, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, FAIZAL A.S. SMT.R.DEVIKA SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR SMT.SRI HARINI S.P. FOREIGN TRADE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, 5TH FLOOR, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037. BY SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2020, ALONG WITH WA.16/2020, WA.17/2020, WA.18/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of January 2020 Shaffique, J These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.33431/2019 and connected cases. The challenge in these cases is with reference to separate order being passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, by which, having found that the exporters have exported goods which was not permitted in terms of the appropriate orders passed by the competent authority, had called upon the petitioners to return the MEIS scrips which were remained unutilised or to produce evidence regarding payment of amount equal to the utilised scrip value along with interest to the customs authority.

2. Following is the order passed as per Ext.P5 in W.P. (C).No.33431/2019.

“3.1 I hereby order that in case the MEIS scrips remain unutilized, the same may be surrendered to this office. If the said MEIS scrips have already been utilized, evidence for having paid an amount equal to the utilized scrip value along with interest to the Customs Authority be produced to this office.

3.2 I also hereby order that till the Exporter surrender the un- utilized MEIS scrips to this office or furnish Custom Receipts evidencing payment of MEIS scrip value and interest, under Rule 7(1) of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 read with, Section of 9(2) of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, the company be put under Denied Entity List (DEL)

which denies any further benefits from this office.” Similar orders had been passed in other cases as well. The only difference is regarding the quantum of amount involved in payment of customs duty.

3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment

observed that, in so far as there is no jurisdictional error and there is an appellate remedy, the petitioners will have to approach the Appellate Authority.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that

the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) have no power to direct recovery of any amount and that even if an appeal is filed, it will not be efficacious. It is submitted that the DGFT has already taken a stand on similar issues and therefore, it is stated that the alternative remedy is not efficacious. We don't think so. When an alternative remedy is provided, the petitioners will have to approach the Appellate Authority and thereafter, if orders are against them, they can definitely approach the next forum. Each case depends upon its own facts. Under such circumstances, we don't think it appropriate to entertain the writ appeals. The petitioners are directed to prefer an appeal. Of course, the Appellate Authority, while considering the appeal, shall take into consideration all available contentions raised by the petitioners. The appeals shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today. The writ appeals are disposed of as above. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/- MARY JOSEPH kp True copy JUDGE P.A. To Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties M/S.Freeze Exim vs Foreign Trade Development Officer Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique,Honourable Mrs. Justice M...