Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (2) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3 in (a) issue Notification No. 19/2015-2020 dated 05-08-201897 by modifying the Exim Code 07136000 which deals with Pigeon (peas (Cajanus cajan) / Toor Dal from FREE to RESTICTED and other interns falling in 07139010 and 07139090 regarding Split and other were also modified to Restricted as per the first modification as illegal, arbitrary, nonest in the eye of Law, without jurisdiction, Violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violation of Section 6(3) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 and violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, (b) issuing consequential Notification vide Notification No.22/2015-2020, dated 21/08/2017 and Notification No.06/2015-2020, dated 04/05/2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. The facts in all the cases are virtually the same. Hence, WP.No.552 of 2019 was taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel. The petitioner was importing pulses from foreign countries and also exporting the same. The export, import policy (Exim policy) freely permitted the import of the material involved in this case, namely pigeon peas. They were imported under free category i.e. there were no restrictions on the import of this material. Petitioner entered into various contracts with foreign suppliers and was importing the pulses. Apart from the customs formality, learned counsel for the pet .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... also be exercised, in such cases and subject to such conditions, by the Director General or such other officer subordinate to the Director General, as may be specified in the order." (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, learned counsel argues that the power under Section 3 of the Act, cannot be exercised by the petitioners.   This is the sum and substance of his challenge. He relies upon the judgment reported in Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd., v. Union of India 2014 (10) SCC 673 and State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish 2011 (8) SCC 670. Relying on these two judgments, learned counsel argues that the impugned notification is not validly issued and that only the Central Government can issue the same. It is also his contention that Executi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nch judgment of High Court of Gujarath in Civil Application No.16765 of 2018, wherein this rule itself felt for consideration and was accepted by the said High Court. Apart from that the learned Assistant Solicitor General relies upon the judgment of the high Court of Kerala in WA.No.480 of 2011, wherein a similar issue was considered. Relying on both these decisions, learned Assistant Solicitor General argues that the order is issued by the Central Government and that it is validly signed and authenticated by the 3rd respondent. Lastly, relying upon a single Judges decision from the Calcutta high Court in WP.No.26409 of 2013, the learned counsel argues that the DGFT is empowered to sign and authenticate such orders. This Court after heari .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on Bench of the Gujarat high Court in CA.No.16765 of 2018 and batch. A similar notification was also considered by a Division Bench of the Kerala high Court in WA.No.480 of 2011, wherein the Division Bench noticed that the notification was issued on behalf of the Central Government and is signed by the Director General of Foreign Trade. Therefore, the Bench held that the notification is valid. Lastly, the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP.No.26409 of 2013 is also in the opinion of this Court; appropriate. In that case also, notifications were issued. After considering the issue about the Allocation of Business Rules, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the signature on the notification by the DGFT is a valid sign .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates