Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1718 - HC - CustomsPrinciple of parity and comity of court - vires of Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - HELD THAT - The notification dated 29.3.2019 having been issued by the Central Government, prima facie there can be no doubt about it being intra vires Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. However to the extent, the said notification is being made operative retrospectively it prima facie cannot be and it would be directed that in the interim it operate qua the petitioner only prospectively. However the order dated 16.4.2019 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade to the extent it seeks to modify the Central Government s notification dated 29.3.2019 in the garb of purported clarification shall remain stayed. A copy of the petition be served on Mr. Siddharth Rank and Mr. Anand Sharma. Their names be shown in the cause list.
Issues:
Interim stay of notifications dated 29.3.2019 and order dated 16.4.2019 - Prima facie vires of notification under Foreign Trade Act - Operative retrospectively - Modification of notification by Directorate General of Foreign Trade. Analysis: The petitioner sought similar indulgence in the interim as granted in a previous case, citing identical merits and principles of parity and comity of court. The notification dated 29.3.2019, issued by the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, was considered prima facie intra vires Section 3 of the Act. However, the retrospective operation of this notification was deemed questionable, leading to a directive for prospective application only concerning the petitioner. The order dated 16.4.2019 by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, attempting to modify the Central Government's notification under the guise of clarification, was stayed. Consequently, the respondents were instructed to release the petitioner's commodities, subject to payment of duties and pending the outcome of the petition. A direction was given to serve a copy of the petition on specific individuals and list the case for further proceedings on a specified date. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the validity of the Central Government's notification and the Directorate General of Foreign Trade's subsequent order, emphasizing the need for prospective application and the limitation on retrospective operation. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of the petitioner and ensure compliance with legal requirements under the Foreign Trade Act, pending a final resolution in the ongoing legal proceedings.
|