IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17862 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- M/S. I PATH (INDI) PVT LTD. G-358, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI.A.S.DEVRAJ. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SRI.T.R.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-11. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GR VII) CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI - 682 009. 4. THE DIRECTOR SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA JV CENTRE, P B No. 5517, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 675 034. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALUNKAL,CGC FOR R1 - R3 SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.17862 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P9, P17 and P22 orders. However, the petitioner admits that those are appealable orders. But the contention of the petitioner is that no purpose would be served by challenging the same before the appellate authority without first deciding the question of law as to “whether the benefit of Ext.P23 notification is applicable to the petitioner which was established under the previous policy where export obligation 5 times the value of CIF was mandatory.” The contention of the petitioner is that the appellate authority would not consider the contentions of the petitioner based on the previous policy. I do not think that there is any basis for such apprehension in so far as the appellate authority is bound to consider all contentions raised by an appellant. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek appellate remedies against the impugned orders, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd