Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 14.05.2026
+ LPA 346/2026, CM Nos.31207/2026 & 31208/2026
RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. R. Jawahar Lal & Mr. Sayyam
Maheshwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi & Mr. Pravar
Dennison, Advs. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ ( Oral )
1. Heard Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.
Jawahar Lal, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Shiva Lakshmi,
learned Counsel representing the Respondents.
2. This intra-court Appeal seeks to take exception to the Order dated
28.03.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed by learned Single Judge whereby
W.P.(C) No.13869/2024 (“ Writ Petition ”) instituted by the Appellant has
been disposed of by relegating the Appellant to take recourse to the
appellate remedy under Section 15(1)(b) of the Foreign Trade (Development
and Regulation Act, 1991 (“ Act ”).
LPA 346/2026 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:23:15

3. Under challenge before the learned Single Judge was an order dated
27.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Foreign Trade whereby the
Service Exports from India (“ SEIS ”) scrips issued to the Appellant under
the Free Trade Policy 2015-2020 were cancelled and a penalty of
₹10,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant for obtaining the said scrips by
misdeclaration. Another prayer made in the Writ Petition before the learned
Single Judge was for setting aside the communication dated 12.09.2024
whereby the Appellant was informed of its inclusion in the “Denied Entity
List”.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant states that insofar as the
Impugned Order cancelling the scrips and imposing penalty on the
Appellant is concerned, the Appellant shall take recourse to the appropriate
statutory remedy available under Section 15 / 16 of the Act. He, however,
submits that relegating the Appellant to take recourse to the appellate
remedy even against the Order dated 12.09.2024 by the learned Single Judge
is not sustainable for the reason that the said order / communication dated
12.09.2024 was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural
justice.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant draws our attention to
the Impugned Order passed by the learned Single Judge where no discussion
about availability / non-availability of alternate appellate / review remedy in
respect of the Communication dated 12.09.2024 has been made. His
submission is that the prayer relating to quashing of the Communication
dated 12.09.2024 has not been adjudicated upon by the learned Single
Judge. Referring to the provision of Section 7 of the Act, it has been stated
LPA 346/2026 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:23:15

by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that without an Importer-
exporter Code (“ IEC ”) Number, no one is legally authorized either to
import or export any goods in India and further that such IEC Number is
granted by the Director General or any other officer authorized by him in
this behalf, as per the procedure prescribed for the said purpose. It has been
stated that the Appellant has been in the business of import / export for last
22 years and the Communication dated 12.09.2024 cancelling the IEC
Number of the Appellant, which was duly allotted to it, is not only in
flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, but also of statutory
requirement as provided in Section 8 of the Act.
6. His submission, thus, is that though remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is discretionary and ordinarily a writ petition ought not
be entertained in the wake of availability of a statutory and equally
efficacious remedy, however, there are certain exceptions where even in the
wake of availability of statutory remedy, the writ petition instituted under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to be entertained and
appropriate orders be passed. He states that as laid down in Whirlpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1
one of the exceptions for this Court to entertain a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India where an alternative statutory remedy is
available is in case where the action complained of is in violation of
principles of natural justice.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, however, stated
that insofar as the Order dated 27.08.2024 cancelling the scrips and
imposing penalty on the Appellant is concerned, opportunity of hearing was
LPA 346/2026 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:23:15

granted to the Appellant and, therefore, there is no illegality in the said
order. However, it could be disputed by the learned Counsel for the
Respondents that Order dated 27.08.2024 may be subjected to challenge by
the Appellant by taking recourse to the remedy available under Section 15 /
16 of the Act.
8. As regards the Communication dated 12.09.2024, which was also
challenged before the learned Single Judge in the proceedings of the Writ
Petition, nothing could be pointed out on behalf of Respondents
demonstrating that adequate and effective opportunity of hearing was
afforded to the Appellant before passing the said order / issuing the
Communication dated 12.09.2024.
9. At this juncture, our attention has been drawn to a Show Cause Notice
dated 30.10.2023 (“ SCN ”) which has been annexed as Annexure A-14 to the
Appeal and on the said basis, it has been stated that Clause 8(c) of the said
SCN clearly required the Appellant to show cause as to why appropriate
orders in respect of IEC may not be passed. On the aforesaid count, it has
been argued by learned Counsel for the Respondents that there is no
violation of the principles of natural justice. She has also stated that Clause
9 of the said SCN dated 30.10.2023 also provided an opportunity of hearing
to the Appellant as well and, therefore, the Communication dated
12.09.2024 cannot be said to have been passed or issued without observing
the principles of natural justice.
10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties, we are of the
opinion that so far as the challenge to the Impugned Order cancelling the
scrips and imposing penalty on the Appellant is concerned, the Appellant
LPA 346/2026 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:23:15

has rightly been relegated to the statutory remedy available under Section 15
/ 16 of the Act and, therefore, we reiterate the order passed by learned Single
Judge in this regard. We, thus, provide that in case such a remedy is availed
by the Appellant within three weeks from today, the same shall be
considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the
appropriate authority.
11. It is needless to observe that all the issues, which may be available to
the Parties under law, are kept open to be urged before the statutory
authority under Section 15/16 of the Act.
12. So far as the issue relating to the Communication dated 12.09.2024 is
concerned, we may refer to the provision of Section 8 of the Act, which
provides for suspension / cancellation of Importer-exporter Code Number.
Section 8 of the Act is reproduced below:
“ 8. Suspension and cancellation of Importer-exporter Code
Number.—1 [(1) Where—
(a) any person has contravened any of the provisions of this Act
or any rules or orders made thereunder or the foreign trade policy
or any other law for the time being in force relating to Central
excise or customs or foreign exchange or has committed any other
economic offence under any other law for the time being in force as
may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the
Official Gazette; or
(b) the Director General or any other officer authorised by him
has reason to believe that any person has made an export or import
in a manner prejudicial to the trade relations of India with any
foreign country or to the interests of other persons engaged in
imports or exports or has brought disrepute to the credit or the
goods of, or services or technology provided from, the country; or
(c) any person who imports or exports specified goods or
services or technology, in contravention of any provision of this Act
or any rules or orders made thereunder or the foreign trade policy,
LPA 346/2026 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:23:15

the Director General or any other officer authorised by him may
call for the record or any other information from that person and
may, after giving to that person a notice in writing informing him of
the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or cancel the
Importer-exporter Code Number and after giving him a reasonable
opportunity of making a representation in writing within such
reasonable time as may be specified in the notice and, if that person
so desires, of being heard, suspend for a period, as may be
specified in the order, or cancel the Importer-exporter Code
Number granted to that person.
(2) Where any Importer-exporter Code Number granted to a
person has been suspended or cancelled under sub-section (1), that
person shall not be entitled to 2 [import or export any goods or
services or technology] except under a special licence, granted, in
such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed,
by the Director General to that person.”
13. A perusal of the afore-quoted Section 8 of the Act reveals that
suspension and cancellation of IEC Number can be resorted to where any
person has contravened any of the provisions of the Act or any Rules or
orders made thereunder or the foreign trade policy or any other law for the
time being in force relating to central excise or customs or foreign exchange
or has committed any other economic offence under any other law for the
time being in force as may be specified by the Central Government. Section
8 of the Act further provides that suspension / cancellation of the IEC
Number can also be resorted to in case the Director General, or any other
officer authorized by him, has reasons to believe that any person has made
an export or import in a manner prejudicial to the trade relations of India
with any foreign country or to the interests of other persons engaged in
imports or exports or has brought disrepute to the credit or the goods of or
services or technology provided or the foreign trade policy. Such measure
can also be resorted to in case any person who imports or exports specified
LPA 346/2026 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:23:15

goods or services in contravention of any provisions of the Act or Rules or
orders made thereunder or the foreign trade policy.
14. Section 8 of the Act further provides that in case suspension /
cancellation of the IEC Number is intended, the Director General of Foreign
Trade or an officer authorized by him in this behalf may call for the records
or any other information from the person concerned and may after giving
that person a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is
proposed to suspend / cancel the IEC Number and further after giving him a
reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing, may suspend
or cancel the IEC Number.
15. Thus, the principles of natural justice are fully embodying in Section
8 of the Act wherein action of suspension / cancellation of IEC Number can
be resorted to only after issuance of SCN, that too, by mentioning the
grounds of intended action and further by affording an opportunity of
making a representation and hearing. On perusal of the Communication
dated 12.09.2024, which was challenged before the learned Single Judge in
the proceedings of Writ Petition, what we find is that the Communication
dated 12.09.2024 only mentions that the IEC 0288022912 / Licence Number
0511013855 has been marked to “Denied Entity List”. The said
Communication does not disclose any reason; neither does it mention
anything about the factum of having been issued a SCN or having afforded
an opportunity to the Appellant of making a representation and hearing in
terms of Section 8 of the Act.
16. As per the statutory requirement of Section 7 of the Act, any person or
entity is not authorized to engage in the business of import or export without
LPA 346/2026 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:23:15

obtaining the Importer-exporter Code Number and in a situation where such
IEC Number is marked to “Denied Entity List”, such an entity in respect of
which such communication is issued is legally barred from making any
exports or imports.
17. Such a marking, as has been made by the Communication dated
12.09.2024, not only deprives the person who was having a valid IEC
Number, to engage in the business of import and export, but also deprives
the said person / entity of certain incentives / benefits which may be
available under various schemes. In such a situation, any marking of an
importer / exporter to “Denied Entity List” virtually amounts to civil death
and, therefore, the legislature has been conscious enough to have taken an
adequate safeguard by enacting Section 8 of the Act, which unambiguously
provides for not only issuance of SCN by mentioning the grounds of
intended action of suspension / cancellation, but also affording an
opportunity of making a representation and hearing to the person / entity
concerned.
18. So far as the submission made by learned Counsel for the
Respondents, based on the SCN dated 30.10.2023, is concerned, we may
note that Section 8(c) of the Act does not talk about intended action of
cancellation, it only talks about “suspension”. Further, the requirement of
communicating the grounds of intended action of cancellation is also
missing in the said SCN and, therefore, so far as the Communication dated
12.09.2024 is concerned, the said SCN cannot be construed to mean that it
met the requirement of Section 8 of the Act.
LPA 346/2026 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:23:15

19. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has, lastly, made an attempt
to submit that merely because the Appellant has been marked to “Denied
Entity List”, the same will not amount to cancellation of IEC Number. Such
a statement in our considered opinion is highly misconceived. Had the said
marking been for a temporary period of time, such period ought to have
been indicated in such marking for all practical purposes. After the
Communication dated 12.09.2024, the Appellant cannot indulge in any kind
of export or import in absence of IEC as per Section 7 of the Act.
Accordingly, such a submission in our opinion is highly misconceived.
20. For the reasons stated above, we have no hesitation to hold that the
Communication dated 12.09.2024 was issued not only in flagrant violation
of principles of natural justice, but also in complete derogation of the
provisions of Section 8 of the Act. We have also noticed that so far as the
prayer relating to quashing of the Communication dated 12.09.2024 is
concerned, the Impugned Order does not adjudicate the said prayer at all.
21. In view of the aforesaid, the Communication dated 12.09.2024 is not
sustainable for want of observation of principles of natural justice as also for
flagrantly violating the statutory requirements embedded in Section 8 of the
Act. Accordingly, the Communication dated 12.09.2024 is hereby quashed.
22. It will, however, be open to the Respondents to initiate proceedings
against the Appellant afresh under Section 8 of the Act by issuing a SCN
fulfilling the requirement of the said provision and by providing adequate
opportunity of making a representation in writing and affording a hearing as
well, to the Appellant.
LPA 346/2026 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:23:15

23. The Impugned Order dated 28.03.2026 passed by learned Single
Judge is modified to the extent aforesaid.
24. The Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
Applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
TEJAS KARIA, J
MAY 14, 2026
‘gsr’
LPA 346/2026 Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:23:15