2018 (10) TMI 1931 - HC - Customs

Stay on N/N. 04/2015-2020 dated 25.04.2018 and N/N. 05/2015- 2020 dated 25.04.2018, issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce Industry, Department of Commerce - HELD THAT - This Court finds that prima-facie the orders which has been issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce Industry, Department of Commerce, are not in consonance with the requirement of Section 3 of Foreign Trade(Development and Regulation) Act,1992 and matter requires consideration. Counsel for the respondent-Mr. Anand Sharma may file reply to the writ petition within a period of two weeks. In the meanwhile, the operation and effect of Notification No.04/2015-2010 dated 25.04.2018, Notification No.05/2015- 2020 dated 25.04.2018, Notification No.32/2015-2020 dated 30.08.2018 and Notification No.37/2015-2020 dated 28.09.2018 shall remain stayed. List on 30.10.2018.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to notifications issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade
- Allegation of unreasonable restriction on import of commodities
- Violation of Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992
- Stay on notifications by the Madras High Court
- Prima facie assessment of the legality of the orders issued by the Director General

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the notifications issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, alleging unreasonable restrictions on the import of commodities like peas. The petitioner contended that the Director General had wrongly exercised power in violation of Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992. The Madras High Court had stayed the notifications in a related matter, prompting the petitioner to seek similar relief.

In a previous round of litigation, the court had already passed an interim order in a connected matter, indicating a history of legal challenges to the impugned notifications. The court noted that the orders issued by the Director General did not appear to align with the requirements of Section 3 of the Foreign Trade Act, necessitating further examination.

The respondent's counsel requested time to verify the outcome of the interim order pending before the Madras High Court. The court granted two weeks for the respondent to file a reply to the writ petition. Meanwhile, the operation and effect of the challenged notifications were stayed. The respondent's counsel was also permitted to move an application for vacation of the interim order if necessary.

The court scheduled the next hearing for 30th October 2018, indicating a continuation of the legal proceedings in this matter. The judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring compliance with legal provisions and the need for a thorough review of the notifications in question.