Page 109 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] LEO PRIME COMP PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 331

[Order]. - The petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent in F. No.
04/21/21/1366/AM12, dated 10-7-2019 to set aside the same in view of the fact
that it has been passed violating the principles of natural justice and to dispose of
the application of the petitioner dated 27-6-2019 after giving fair opportunity to
the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of high precision component used
in various automobiles sectors and they also manufacture and supply machined
and turned ferrous and non-ferrous components to automobiles, electricals and
electronics (Sub Assemblies to banking automation) Hydraulics, Medical, Power
and aerospace sectors. The company was established in the year 1984.
3. It is stated that the importing of capital goods under the EPCG
scheme introduced by the 1st respondent viz., the Union of India, Ministry of
Commerce, New Delhi. The petitioner claimed that they have completed and
fulfilled the export obligations as per the said licence which was granted to im-
port capital goods (Machineries) under the EPCG Scheme. The petitioner needed
machineries to increase the production. Therefore, he approached the 2nd re-
spondent for sanction of further licences. The 2nd respondent also issued EPCG
licence and allowed to import machineries after due verification.
4. It is stated that there was some delay in repaying the loan i.e. EMI’s
to the bank. Hence the Bankers declared the petitioner’s loan account as non per-
forming asset (NPA) in the year 2014. There was recovery action by the Banker
and further owing to natural calamity in the 2015 and 2016, the petitioner was
unable to complete the export orders and therefore was not able to fulfil the ex-
port obligations within the stipulated period of 6 years. Hence, the petitioner ap-
proached the 2nd respondent to extend the EPCG Licence period for export obli-
gations. This was given by the representation dated 27-6-2019 under Section 9(2)
of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. However, the rep-
resentation had been rejected by the 3rd respondent by the impugned order.
5. A counter had also been filed by the respondents, in which again it
had been stated that the petitioner had to comply with the export obligations
within the time limit fixed for submission of renewal/extension of licence and
only notice was issued and the rejection by the respondent is not final.
6. It is stated that the application was also filed after considerable peri-
od of time. It is stated that the writ petition is premature. Further it is stated as
follows :
“7. …… Hence, in the light of the same the department give effective
consideration to the request of the petitioner and passed the order dated
10-7-2019 which is not an outright rejection.
8. …… In the event of the petitioner fulfilling the requirements under the
impugned order, his application/representation for extension/Renewal of
licence shall be considered in accordance with law for a period of 2 years as
the respondents do not have jurisdiction for the period beyond 2 years.”
7. However, u/s. 9(4) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regula-
tion) Act, 1992, it had been provided as follows :
“9.(4) The Director-General or the officer authorised under sub-section (2),
may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, for good and suffi-
cient reasons, to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel any [licence,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  109