The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Director General of Foreign Trade does not have the authority to amend the foreign trade policy, as this power is reserved for the Central Government under Section 5 of the Act of 1992.

1. The petitioner has challenged notification no. 09/2015-20 dated June 3, 2016 issued by Director General of Foreign Trade.

2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, Director General of Foreign Trade has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notification. By the impugned notification, a foreign trade policy is sought to be altered. Assuming that foreign trade policy can be altered, it has to be done by the Central Government. The Director General of Foreign Trade cannot be said to be the Central Government. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and has submitted that Section 6(3) of the Act of 1992 does not permit a Director General of Foreign Trade to issue any notification in exercise of powers under Section 3 or 5 of the Act of 1992. The impugned notification states that, the same has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act of 1992. He has referred to Section 19(3) of the Act of 1992 and has submitted that, the impugned notification has not been laid before the Parliament in terms of Section 19(3) of the Act of 1992 till date. At least, nothing has been placed on record to suggest otherwise. Therefore, even on that score, the impugned notification is non-est in the eye of law.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is engaged in the business of publication of newspaper. Such business requires newsprint. Newsprint is imported. The petitioner does not require large quantity of newsprints for the quantum of business of the petitioner. The petitioner places orders on import houses for newsprints. Other newspaper publications not having large volume of business also places orders for newsprints on import houses, who makes the requisite supplies. The import houses imports the newsprints on behalf of such individual newspaper businesses. The impugned notification affects the right of the petitioner to carry on business of publication of newspaper. The impugned notification requires small business persons to comply with such requisitions which are onerous. By the impugned notification, the petitioner has to satisfy the customs authorities about the import requirements at the time of import of the newsprint. Compliance with such requirement will mean that, the petitioner will have to import the newsprint in its own name. In doing so, the petitioner will be required to import large quantities of newsprints. Import of newsprint at such volume is not economically feasible for the petitioner. Money and space will get tied down in such process. It is not financially feasible for a small business house as that of the petitioner to do so.

4. Referring to Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the Central Government had passed the Newsprint Control Order, 2004. He has referred to the various provisions of the Control Order of 2004 and has submitted that, the petitioner was governed by such Control Order. Relying upon 1987 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 602 (State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police & Anr.) and 2009 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases page 46 (Atul Commodities Private Limited & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin 9) learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, Director General of Foreign Trade cannot amend the Foreign Trade Policy. It can, at best, issue a notification which is clarificatory in nature. The impugned notification seeks to amend the Policy, which cannot be done by the Director General of Foreign Trade.

5. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent has submitted that, although, the impugned notifications speaks of exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act of 1992, for all practical purposes, powers under Section 5 of the Act of 1992 were exercised. The power of t