HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M/s. M.R. Impex, having his Office at Nagoor, - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi & Others - Respondents
WP No. 32998 of 2016 & WPMP Nos. 28513 & 28514 of 2016
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Notification - Foreign Trade Policy - The court upheld the validity of an amendment to the Import Policy Condition No.3 of Chapter 12 of ITC (HS) 2012, Schedule I, issued by the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, despite the petitioner's challenge based on the authority of the Director General of Foreign Trade to issue the amendment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an amendment to the Import Policy Condition No.3 of Chapter 12 of ITC (HS) 2012, Schedule I, issued by the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Central Government was competent to issue the amendment under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and upheld the validity of the amendment despite the petitioner's challenge based on the authority of the Director General of Foreign Trade to issue the amendment. The court dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit.
Issues: The issues involved the authority of the Director General of Foreign Trade to issue the amendment and the validity of the amendment under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Central Government was competent to issue the amendment under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and that the alleged signature of the Director General of Foreign Trade did not invalidate the amendment, which was otherwise issued pursuant to Section 3 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merits, and also dismissed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent, leading to issuance of Notification No.17/2015-20 dated 29.07.2016, as the same is ultravires the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of M/s.Kanak Exports reported in (2016) 1 SCC 226 and the judgment of this Court in WP No.5019 of 2016 dated 05.04.2016.)
1. The Notification No.17/2015-20 dated 29.07.2016 issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner M/s.M.R.Impex is a registered dealer under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner is an Assessee under the Income Tax Act and conducting business of import of Poppy Seeds from China and Turkey. The import of Poppy Seeds from China and Turkey was being permitted in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy in force from time to time, which envisaged submission of import contracts for specified quantities to the Office of the fourth respondent, who on receipt of the same, would register the said contract, pursuant to which imports were permitted in respect of the quantity mentioned in the said contracts.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned Amendment in the Import Policy Condition No.3 of Chapter 12 of ITC (HS) 2012 – Schedule I (Import Policy) has been issued in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub Section (ii) dated 29.07.2016.
4. The petitioner states that the amendment Notification issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade is without jurisdiction and he being not the Competent Authority, the amendment is to be set aside.
5. It is reiterated that the Director General of Foreign Trade is not the Authority to send the Gazette Notification issued by the Central Government, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
6. The learned Central Government Sanding Counsel made a submission that the Notification is always issued by the Central Government and not by Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) is only signing the Notification on behalf of the Central Government. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner are untenable.
7. Let us consider the requirement of Section 3 (1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992, which stipulates that “The Central Government may, by Order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports and increasing exports”. Thus the Central Government is competent to issue regulations of foreign trade by facilitating imports and increasing exports.
8. In the present case, the amendment was made subject to Import Policy Condition No.3 of Chapter 12 of the ITC (HS), 2012 Schedule I (Import Policy). The Gazette Notification Extraordinary unambiguously stipulates that “In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, read with paragraphs 1.02 and 2.01 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020, as amended from time to time, the Central Government hereby amends the Import Policy Condition No.3 of Chapter 12 of ITC (HS), 2012, Schedule I (Import Policy) which at present reads as under:
“2. (3) Import of Poppy Seeds (HS Code : 120791 00) shall be allowed subject to the following conditions:
(a) Import permitted only from Australia, Austria, France, China, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Democratic People''s Republic of Korea, Macedonia, Germany and Ukraine;
(b) The importer shall produce an appropriate certificate from the Competent Authority of the exporting country that Opium Poppy have been grown licitly / legally in that country, and
(c) All import contracts for this item shall compulsorily be regi
AI
The main legal point established is that the Central Government is competent to issue amendments to the Import Policy under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and the alleged s....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Trade Notice cannot be issued to amend a Notification under the FTDR Act, and any amendment must be made in accordance with the statutory pr....
The main legal point established is that a Trade Notice cannot amend a notification issued under Section 3 of the FTDR Act without following the statutory procedure.
The High Court may issue a direction under Article 226 for the expeditious disposal of a pending statutory review petition by the relevant authority under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulatio....
The authority of the government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 to impose restrictions on imports is legally valid.
A perusal of the impugned notification reveals that by virtue of such notification the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the Act read with paragraphs 1.02 and 2.01 o....
The court held a writ petition can be dismissed as withdrawn upon request from the petitioner's counsel, without imposing costs.
The High Court may direct statutory authorities to dispose of pending review petitions within a defined timeframe without adjudicating on the merits of the underlying order.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.