HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION No.28347 of 1998 Date: January 18, 2008 Between: M/s. Gautam Granites Limited, Represented by its Director Mr. Sanjay I Mutha. … Petitioner And 1. Union of India, Ministry of Industry Department of Industrial Development, Represented by its under Secretary, New Delhi and 3 others. … Respondents * * * ORDER: This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the order dated 21.10.1997 passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside. 2. The petitioner obtained permission for export of cut and polished Granite slabs on 04th May 1989 from the first respondent with a condition that the entire production was to be exported with a value addition of not less than 55.3 %. The permission also was subsequently revised through the order dated 28.12.1995 with export obligation of value addition of not less than 65%. The petitioner had signed the legal requirements and also furnished adequate bank guarantee in favour of the first respondent. The third respondent issued a show cause notice on 28.9.1995 seeking explanation from the petitioner for shortfall of quantity of export for the period from 01.3.1994 to 31.3.1995. The petitioner gave a reply on 18.10.1995 explaining the factor for lower quantity of exports and the steps taken to improve the export sales. The third respondent issued another show cause notice on 13.8.1996 for the period from 01.4.1995 to 31.3.1996 requiring the petitioner to explain the shortfall in achieving the value addition stipulated in fulfillment of export obligation of 65%. The petitioner gave a reply mentioning that the management was taken from the promoters in the year 1994 and the machinery has been renovated and re-modernized and the new machinery was not installed on account of civil construction and fabrication works. The second respondent passed an order on 21st October 1997 levying a fiscal penalty of Rs.20.00 lakhs holding that the petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation and misleading the adjudicating authority under the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, read with Section 20 (2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Committee Cell-I and the Appellate Authority has reduced the penalty from Rs.20.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs through the order dated 05th March 1998. The petitioner contended that the order has been passed in disregard of the principles of natural justice and it was passed under the repealed Act. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy submits that the obligation prescribed under the permit has been started in 1989 and the obligation under old Act has been saved under Section 20 (2) (b) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Section 20 (2)(b) of the said Act reads as follows: 20. Repeal and savings--- (2) The repeal of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947), shall, however, not affect, --- (a) ……………….. (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act so repealed; or (c) ……………. (d) ……………. and any such proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, confiscation or punishment may be imposed or made as if that Act had not been repealed. As the Section clearly indicates that the obligation arose under the old Act is also saved, the concerned authorities were right in imposing the penalty by invoking the provisions under the repealed Act by referring to the saving clause of the new Act. 4. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if there is any penalty to be imposed, the order should have been passed under the 1992 Act, but not under the repealed Act, but after going through the said Section I am made to understand that the obligation arose under the old Act has been saved under the new Act. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. So far as the penalty is concerned, the Appellate Authority has considered the merits and ultimately reduced the penalty from Rs.20.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs. So far as the other contentions of the petitioner that there was overlapping of the period in imposing the penalty and subsequent orders are also to be tested regarding their legality, I am to mention that those orders are not under challenge in the writ petition and if there is any cause of action survives and if there is any grievance to the petitioner against the orders, he is at liberty to take appropriate steps for redressal of the grievance if any. 6. In the light of the above circumstances, I do not find any ground to favour the petitioner through this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ (Dr. G.YETHIRAJULU, J) Date: January 18, 2008. Note: Issue CC in one week. //B.O.// BSB