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 1387 - HC - CustomsProhibited goods or not - opium poppy or bread seed poppy - public notice No. 9/2019 - guidelines for registration of sales contract in regard to poppy seed imports from Turkey - HELD THAT:- The guidelines are specific to poppy seed imports from Turkey. They speak, in clause I, of a determination of a country cap. This cap is to be approved by the Department of Revenue, based on a recommendation by the Narcotics Commissioner, a representative of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, and a representative of the Department of Revenue. The clause clearly says that the country cap will be based on stock and production of poppy seeds as communicated by the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) or the Turkish Embassy in India. Clearly, therefore, this cap is not ad hoc or without basis. The power to impose quantitative restrictions can be traced to Chapter III-A of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act 1992. This was inserted by a 2010 amendment, and confers power on the Central Government to impose quantitative restrictions on imports. Section 9-A says that the Central Government may, after conducting a suitable enquiry, if satisfied that any goods are imported into India in large quantities and under such conditions as injure or threaten to injure domestic industry, it may impose quantitative restriction. These restrictions can continue for a maximum of four years, extendable by a like period - Once, therefore, we find that there is a power to regulate and a power to impose quantitative restrictions, and there is no challenge to the exercise of that power, it is difficult to see what remains in the Petition. Merely saying that a certain clause is, in the Petitioner’s view, sub-optimal, or leaves something to be desired, is not enough to warrant a striking down of the notification. We cannot, equally, substitute our view for government policy framed in legitimate exercise of statutory power. Once, therefore, we see that the presently impugned Guidelines are but a step towards implementing a policy that has not only been in place in some form for many years previously, but is in furtherance of a policy to promote the larger public interest, then the narrow commercial interests of the Petitioners must yield. Petition is entirely without merits and is dismissed.
|