IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21792 of 2009(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SADATH LEBBA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLOORATEX RUBBER & PLASTICSN (P) LTD., P.R.P. TOWERS, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.MATHEW JOHN (K), MR.AJEESH K.SASI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, UDYOG BHAVAN,NEW DELHI – 1. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, CHENNAI. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN REGIONAL UNIT, VILAKKUNNEL, KATHOTH ROAD,COCHIN -25. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE,CHENNAI. 6. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NEW DELHI. 7. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE,BANGALORE. 8. THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE VTH A BLOCK, KENDRIYA BHAVAN,KAKKANAD. BY ADV. MR. P.GOPINATH MENON, SC BY ADV. MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).21792/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT I heard Mr.Mathew John, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for R1 and R8, and Mr.Gopinatha Menon, learned counsel appearing for R2 to R7. 2. Petitioner is the Executive Director of a concern which exports different types of rubber sheets, mats and industrial floorings. Certain products exported by the petitioner were proposed to be treated by the Director General of the firm as products other than rubber mats covered by Entry 547 of Ext.P1 notice issued by the Customs Department. A similar issue raised in relation to other exporters reached this Court in O.P.No.23261/2002 and Connected Cases and by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court in those cases, further export of such products were continued to be directed to be treated under Entry 547 of Ext.P1. W.P.(C).21792/09 2 3. The challenge in the said writ petition was essentially against Ext.P8 clarification purported to be issued by the Committee of DEPB. The contention that the Committee is incompetent to determine the classification of the products was accepted by this Court in Eapen v. Director General of Foreign Trade (2006 (2) KLT 650). ( it is same as Ext.P9 judgment). It is submitted that Ext.P9 judgment is now pending in appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. 4. It further seems that similar products being exported by the petitioner are continued to be treated by the Customs Department as covered by Entry 547 of Ext.P1. But alleging violation of Ext.P8, the Joint Director of Foreign Trade issued notice to the petitioner proposing to revoke the permission granted in his favour. Reply filed by the petitioner was not accepted and by Ext.P16 order, the following directions were issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, which have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. W.P.(C).21792/09 3 “In exercise of powers vested in me under Section 9(4) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Section 10 of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules 1993, as amended, I order that all the 118 DEPBs issued to the noticee be cancelled ab-initio (Details of DEPBs as shown in the annexure attached to this Order-in -Original) and the Duty Credit amount of Rs.1,80,85,806/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Eight hundred and six only) along with penal interest @ 15% be recovered from the noticee. This order shall not be enforced for a period of two months as per the direction of Honourable High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition No.12929/08.” 5. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, Ext.P16 is appealable and it has been so indicated in Ext.P16 also. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason why the petitioner should not avail of the alternate remedy available under the statute. W.P.(C).21792/09 4 6. In the result, writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy available under the statute. To enable the petitioner to do so, enforcement of Ext.P16 shall be kept in abeyance for a further period of one month from today. Further enforcement shall thereafter, abide by the interim order to be passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority shall refer to all contentions which the petitioner may raise before it including those based on the judgment in Eapen v. Director General of Foreign Trade (2006 (2) KLT 650). V.GIRI, Judge mrcs