Case Law Details
Union of India Vs Agricas LLP and Others etc. (Supreme Court)
In the instant case, the Writ Petition is filed by challenging the imposition of restrictions on import of Peas and pulses.
As per petitioner, the notifications issued by the DGFT had the effect of modifying or amending the EXIM policy as the specified items were withdrawn from the free category and moved to restricted category. But, the DGFT, a statutory authority under the provisions of FTDR Act, was not authorised to authenticate/issue an order amending or modifying the EXIM policy as this power vests with the Central Government as per the FTDR Act, which states that powers exercisable under Section 3, 5,15,16 and 19 of the FTDR Act cannot be delegated to the DGFT or any other officer subordinate to the Director General.
Supreme Court states that the importers rely upon the interim orders passed by the High Court’s whereas on the date when they filed the Writ Petitions and had obtained interim orders, the Madras High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition upholding the notification. Similarly, the High Court of adjudicature at Bombay, High Court of Gujarat and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had dismissed the Writ Petitions filed before them and upheld the notifications and the trade notices. Notwithstanding the dismissals, the importers took their chance, obviously for personal gains and profits. They would accordingly face the consequences in law. In these circumstances, the importers it cannot be said had bona fide belief in the right pleaded. Accordingly, SC uphold the impugned notifications and the trade notices and reject the challenge made by the importers. Further they state that the DGFT is an authority constituted under the FTDR Act and appointed by the Central Government to advise them on foreign trade policy and is responsible for carrying out that policy.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
