Full Judgment
1. The petitioners were registered exporters under the Import Export policy for the year 1978-79 pursuant to a Registration Certificate dated 11.10.1976 which was granted to them under the relevant import export policy. The scheme of benefits to registered exporters was continued under the import export policy for the year 1978-79. It is an accepted position that once an exporter has been registered, the registered shall remain valid for four years unless the exporter registered ceases to exist or his is deregistered for any reason or he becomes ineligible to hold the certificate. The registration certificate of the petitioners, therefore, would have ordinarily been valid up to 10th October 1980.
2. During June-October 1977 the petitioners agreed to export diverse quantities of cast iron pipes to Egypt on behalf of an Indian exporter who had entered into a contract for this purpose with the Egyptian buyer. Specifications for these cast iron pipes to be exported were also agreed upon. The petitioners accordingly, on behalf of the exporters exported these pipes of Egypt. The first consignment reached Egyptian Customs around November 1977. It seems that on checking the pipes the Egyptian buyers found the pipes sub-standard and also not as per their specifications. They also discovered holes in the pipes. They cabled their seller about these complaints on 14.12.1977. Ultimately they a complaint on 12.3.1978 to the Commercial Counsellor, Embassy of India, Cairo, Egypt. In the complaint details of shipments and their correspondence with the suppliers have been set out.
3. After the receipt of this complaint the Engineering Export Promotion Council (Respondent No. 4) who is the registering authority issued a show cause notice to be petitioners which is dated 2.10.1978 setting out details of the complaint received from the overseas purchasers. The petitioners sent a detailed reply to the show cause notice which is dated 7.11.1978. They also requested for a copy of the complaint received as also for a personal hearing. The Engineering Export Promotion Council sent a reply of 7th December 1978 annexing a copy of the complaint as requested by the petitioners. They also asked the petitioners for the details of shipments made by them. Copies of orders placed by the local exporters and copies of various other documents were also referred to in that letter. There is detailed reply dated 29.12.1978 of the petitioners giving parawise answers to this letter of 7.12.1978.
4. After considering these representations an order was passed on 3.2.1979 deregistering the petitioners and cancelling their registration certificate of 11.10.1976. The Order also states that in view of cancellation of registration certificate, the petitioners not be able to avail of any of the benefits under export assistance scheme. This order is challenged in this present petition on the ground that no personal hearing was given to the petitioners before an order of deregistration was passed and hence the principles of natural justice have been violated.
5. Paragraph 271 of the Hand book of Import Export Procedure, 1978-79 contains a provision for deregistration of exporters. It is an accepted position that similar provisions was contained in the relevant Import and Export Policy at the time when the petitioners obtained registration. Under paragraph 271 the Registering Authority may deregister an exporter for a specified or indefinite period, inter alia, if he has indulged in any form of unfair, corrupt of fraudulent practice or, failed to fulfil any export obligation. Paragraph 271(2) provides that an exporter will ordinarily be given a show cause notice before he is de-registered. In the present case a show cause notice was given to the petitioners. The petitioners were given ample opportunity to make a representation. Documents required by the petitioners were also supplied by the Engineering Export Promotion Council and it was only after considering the representation that an order of de-registration was passed. It is true that the petitioners had asked for a personal hearing. It is also true that the Engineering Export Promotion Council had stated in the course of its correspondence that they would give such a personal hearing after the requisite documents as specified in that letter were furnished by the petitioners. Thereafter a further representation was received from the petitioners. The final order of de-registration was, however, passed without giving a personal hearing.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioners were given full opportunity to make a detailed representation and to submit all relevant documents which were considered by the Engineering Export Promotion Council, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice have been violated. It is true that in one of their letters the Engineering Export Promotion Council had said they would give to the petitioners a personal hearing, which was not done. But looking to the detailed material which was before the Engineering Export Promotion Council and the nature of the explanation of the petitioners, the decision was justified. Giving a personal hearing could not have made any difference to the decision. In these circumstances and looking to the ample material against the petitioners, there is no point in setting aside the decision on the ground that a personal hearing was not given. In every case it is not mandatory that a personal hearing should be given. The petitioners were given an adequate opportunity to submit their case before the Registering Authority. This is sufficient compliance with the principle of natural justice looking to the present circumstances.
7. Immediately after the order of de-registration the petitioners were also informed by letter dated 10.3.1979 by the Engineering Export Promotion Council that the petitioners were at liberty to apply for re-registration under Rule 272 if they so desire. The petitioners did not apply for such re-registration. Even their original certificate would have come to an end on 10th October 1980.
8. In these circumstances, no intervention is called for under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners have claimed cash incentives to the tune of Rs. 26,182.20 in respect of exports effected by them in March 1977. In view however of de-registration of the petitioners, they are not entitled to avail of the cash incentives.
9. Petition, therefore, fails and the rule is discharged with costs.