Kothari Product Ltd. v. Director General Of Foreign Trade & ANR

Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

$-4 & *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3346/2016 & C.M.Nos.14295-14296/2016 PAN PARAG INDIA LTD.

Petitioner Through Mr.Pankaj Bhatia with Mr.Dhruv Surana, Advocates.

versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR Respondents Through Mr.Vineet Malhotra with Mr.Vishah and Mr.Shubhendu Kaushik, Advocates.

i"

+ W.P.(C) 3417/2016 & C.M.Nos.14616-14617/2016 KOTHARI PRODUCT LTD.

Petitioner Through Mr.Pankaj Bhatia with Mr.Dhruv Surana, Advocates.

versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANRRespondents Through Mr.Vineet Malhotra with Mr.Vishal O and Mi-.Shuhhendu Kaushik, Advocates.

^ CORAM;

n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

ORDER

o/o 26.04.2016 Present writ petitions have been filed with the following prayers i) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction quashing the Order No.Ol/94/180/201/AM 13/PC-4 dated 01.04.2016passed by Anup Wadhawan, Director General of Foreign Trade in so far as it directs the transfer of

review application to the Appellate Authority along with the entire record for the submissions therein to be taken up for adjudication as part of the appellate process and in so far as it authorizes DRI to be impleaded in the appellate proceedings and to appear before the appellate authority.

ii) Award cost to this Writ Petition to the petitioner herein;

AND Hi) Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the petitioner. c V '

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset fairly states that his challenge his confined to the observations and directions given in paragraph s of the impugned order dated h' April, 2016, which reads as under;- "d In light of these facts, the review application is transferred to the Appellate Authority along with the entire record for the submissions therein to be taken up for adjudication as part the appellate process, and is accordingly disposed ofj. D may apply to the appellate authority to be impleaded in those j proceedings."

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Section 16 of the FTDR Act does not empower the Reviewing Authority to tiansfer the review petition for hearing to the Appellate Authority, as has been done in the present case.

Mr.Vineet Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent-DGFT fairly concedes that the review should have been decided by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) itself.

Consequently, paras 6 & T of the Impugned order dated F" April, 2016 to the extent it transfers the review petitions to the

Appellate Authority are set aside and the DGFT is directed to decide the review petitions filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) itself. For this purpose, the parties are directed to appear before the DGFT on 29^'' April, 2016 at 4 PM. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petitions and the applications are disposed of.

Order dasti.

\\l MANMOHAN, J c APRIL 26, 2016 KA