Delhi High Court
Globus Metal Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs Uoi And Anr. on 19 January, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~21 & 22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 431/2012
FUTURISTICS METAL TRADING PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.V. Gautam and Mr. K.C. B.
Singh, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC
+ W.P.(C) 442/2012
GLOBUS METAL TRADING PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.V. Gautam and Mr. K.C. B.
Singh, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with
Mr. Nitya Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 19.01.2015
1. These petitions are directed against orders dated 29.09.2011 passed
by the Director, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of
Commerce, Govt. of India (in short the Appellate Authority).
1.1 By this order, the appellate authority has confirmed the orders dated
16.06.2011 passed by the Development Commissioner, Kandla Special
Economic Zone (KASEZ).
1.2 The petitioners, inter alia, claim that while passing the impugned
orders, the appellate authority did not give any opportunity of hearing
in the matter.
1.3 This aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents.
1.4 The petitioners submit that the rejection of the permission sought by it
to set up a unit in KASEZ has been wrongly denied as the authorities below
seemed to have invoked the wrong provisions of law.
1.5 It is the petitioners' case that they are is in the business of segregation
of imported scrap and not recycling, and that, the provisions of Rule
18(4)(d) of the SEZ Rules 2006, apply to recycling.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
2.1 The rule, which has been invoked by the authorities below, reads as
follows :-
"..18. Consideration of proposals for setting up of Unit in a
Special Economic Zone
(4). No proposal shall be considered for
(a). x x x x x
(b). x x x x x
(c). x x x x x
(d). Import of other used goods for recycling:
Provided that extension of Letter of Approval for an
existing Unit shall be decided by the Board.
Provided further that reconditioning repair, and re-
engineering may be permitted subject to the condition that
exports shall have one to one correlation with imports and all
the reconditioned or repaired or reengineered products and
scrap or remnants or waste shall be exported and none of these
goods shall be allowed to be sold in the Domestic Tariff Area
or destroyed.."
2.2 The petitioners have indicated both in the petition and in the appeal
that they are not involved in the activity of recycling. These are aspects
which, the appellate authority will have to go into and for this purpose, it
would be necessary to give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard in
the matter.
3. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The appellate
authority is directed to accord a hearing to the petitioners. The appellate
authority will send an appropriate notice in that behalf to the petitioners
indicating the date, time and venue. The notice will be sent in this behalf to
the petitioner no later than ten (10) days from today. A decision will be
taken on the appeal of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, though no
later than six (6) weeks from today.
3.1 Upon a decision being taken, the same will be communicated to the
petitioners within a period of one week. In case the petitioners are
aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority, they would have liberty
to take recourse to an appropriate remedy; albeit in accordance with law.
4. With the aforesaid observations in place, the writ petitions are
disposed of.
5. Dasti to all parties.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 19, 2015
yg
