SKT TRADERS (PVT) LTD AND ANOTHER

SKT TRADERS (PVT) LTD AND ANOTHER

Vs.

PRIME MINISTER, MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMY & POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
OBEYESEKERE, J. (P/CA)
RAJAKARUNA, J.
CA/WRIT/423/2020
DECEMBER 17, 2020

Imports and Exports Control Act, No. 1 of 1969, sections 14, 20, and regulations made there under-Meaning of "brought before Parliament"

The Minister of Finance, acting in terms of section 14 read with section 20 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, No. 1 of 1969, as amended,

issued the Imports and Exports Control Regulation No. 3 of 2019 and published it in the Gazette.

In terms of section 20(3) of the Act, every regulation made by the Minister shall be published in the Gazette and shall come into operation on the date of publication or on such later date as may be specified in the Regulation. Section 20(4) of the Act provides that every Regulation made by the Minister shall be brought before Parliament within a period of one month from the date of publication in the Gazette.

The contention of the petitioner was that the Regulation in question was not "brought before Parliament" within one month from the date of publication in the Gazette but two days after such time had passed and for that reason the said Regulation is of no force or avail in law.

Held:

1. The words "brought before Parliament" means that the Minister is only required to submit to Parliament the Regulation in question within a period of one month from the date of publication in the Gazette. The Minister has performed that obligation by bringing the Regulation to the attention of the Leader of the House and the Secretary General of Parliament. Once that is done it is up to the Leader of the House and the Secretary General of Parliament to place it on the Order Paper and take the necessary follow up steps, over which the Minister has no control.

2. Even if the words "brought before Parliament" are interpreted to mean that the Regulations must be placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, as opposed to being tendered to the Secretary General of Parliament, in the absence of any sanction for failure to do so, its legality is not affected.

Cases referred to:

1. TDH International (Pvt) Ltd v. Hon. Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Finance and others (CA/WRIT/310/2015, CA Minutes of 03.04 2018)
2. Stafford Motor Company (Pvt) Ltd v. Commissioner General of Inland Revenue (CA/TAX/APPEAL/17/2017, CA Minutes of 18.03.2019)
3. H.R. Podi Appuhamy v. The Government Agent, Kegalle 70 NLR 544 at 546-547

4. llleperuma Sons Ltd v. Government Agent, Galle 70 NLR 549 at 551 and 552

APPLICATION for Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.

K. Deekiriwewa with L.M. Deekiriwewa, Dr. M.K. Herath and Dr. Kanchana De Silva for the Petitioners.

Manohara Jayasinghe, S.S.C., with lndumini Randeni, S.C., for the Respondents.

cur. adv. vult.

February 8, 2021

OBEYESEKERE, J. (P/CA)

The 1st Respondent, the Minister of Finance, acting in terms of section 14 of the Imports and Exports Control Act No. 1 of 1969, as amended (the Act) read together with section 20 thereof, has issued the Imports and Exports Control Regulation No. 3 of 2019, marked 'X4'. In terms of the said Regulations, which have been published in Extraordinary Gazette No. 2152/63 dated 6th December 2019, any person desirous of importing inter alia Turmeric is required to obtain a license from the 3rd Respondent, the Controller General of Imports and Exports.

The 1st Petitioner is a limited liability Company, while the 2nd Petitioner is a director of the 1st Petitioner. The Petitioners state that they imported 89.2MT of Turmeric from India in May 2020 at a cost of USD 111,600. It is admitted that the Petitioners have not obtained a license to import the said consignment of Turmeric, as required by 'X4'. Although the Petitioners claim that the 3rd Respondent did not entertain any applications for a license, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document