2010 (7) TMI 504 - HC - Customs

Ban on export of meat sourced from animal slaughtered - Ministry recalled the notification without any application of mind and just by telephonic talk directed to omit the proviso - law as was originally existing having not been challenged, we find no case made out to interfere with the amendment - no merit, the petition and the Civil Application both dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to amendment of Rule 3 of Raw Meat (Chilled/Frozen) (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1992 under the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the amendment to Rule 3 of the Raw Meat (Chilled/Frozen) (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1992, made under the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963. The amendment in question omitted a proviso banning the export of meat sourced from animals slaughtered in specific facilities. The Central Government, under Section 17 of the Act, has the authority to frame rules regarding quality control and inspection procedures for exports. The impugned amendment was notified on 15-7-1999, omitting the proviso inserted earlier on 9-7-1999. This action was challenged in a previous case before the Bombay High Court, where an interim order of stay was initially granted but later omitted by the Central Government through a subsequent notification.

Under the petitioner's main plea, it was argued that the Ministry recalled the notification without proper consideration and merely based on a telephonic conversation, leading to potential adverse consequences. However, the court found no evidence on record to support the claim that the amendment was made without following due procedure or solely based on a telephonic direction. The court emphasized that if authorities find an amendment to be legally flawed or against public interest, they have the right to repeal it in the public interest, even after an interim stay order has been issued.

It was noted that prior to the amendment on 9-7-1999, there was no prohibition on exporting meat from animals slaughtered in certain facilities. The proviso inserted on 9-7-1999 was subsequently omitted on 15-7-1999, reverting to the original position. Since the original law was not challenged, the court found no justification to interfere with the amendment. Consequently, the petition and the Civil Application were both dismissed, with no order as to costs.