9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 772 - HC - CustomsImport of restricted item - Chickpeas - Notification dated 30/08/2018 - petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner should be permitted to import Peas in respect of all contracts entered by the petitioner prior to imposition of restriction without insisting upon the condition of 100% deposit as advance payment. Held that - The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Taj Agro Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others 2018 (7) TMI 928 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has dealt with the similar issue of restriction on import of Peas and the restriction imposed in the matter from time to time. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court by a detailed and exhaustive order has upheld the restriction imposed by Government of India. The restrictions imposed by Government of India were justified. The farmers of the country were not getting the price in respect of Peas produced by them and large quantity of exports was affecting the farmers of the country adversely. We are all aware that in our country, there are large number of suicides by farmers, they still belongs to lower strata of society. It has become very difficult for them to meet both the ends and therefore, the restriction so imposed can never said to be in violation of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. The respondents were justified in imposing restrictions by issuing notifications - there is no reason to interfere with the notifications issued by the Government of India from time to time - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the retrospective application of the notification dated 25/04/2018. 2. Authority of the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to issue the notification. 3. Interpretation of the term "advance payment" in the notification. 4. Discriminatory treatment of the petitioner compared to other importers. 5. Reasonableness of the restrictions imposed under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Retrospective Application of the Notification: The petitioners argued that the notification dated 25/04/2018, which changed the import policy for Yellow Peas from "free" to "restricted" with retrospective effect from 01/04/2018, was impermissible and lacked legal authority. The court noted that the retrospective application was indeed a significant point of contention, but ultimately upheld the government's stance, emphasizing the broader public interest and the necessity to protect domestic farmers. 2. Authority of the DGFT to Issue the Notification: The petitioners contended that only the Central Government had the authority to amend the Foreign Trade Policy under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and not the DGFT. The court clarified that the DGFT issued the notification with the approval of the Central Government, thus acting within its jurisdiction. The notification was authenticated by the DGFT on behalf of the Central Government, as per the established legal framework. 3. Interpretation of the Term "Advance Payment": The petitioners argued that the term "advance payment" should include both full and part payments, as the notification did not explicitly specify the need for 100% advance payment. The court referred to the Bombay High Court's interpretation, which clarified that the term "advance payment" in the context of the notification was intended to mean full payment. This interpretation aimed to prevent importers from manipulating the system by backdating contracts. 4. Discriminatory Treatment of the Petitioner Compared to Other Importers: The petitioners alleged that they were treated unfairly compared to other importers who were granted registration certificates despite similar circumstances. The court examined the government's response, which indicated that the restrictions and subsequent relaxations were uniformly applied based on specific criteria, including the timing and nature of payments. The court found no evidence of discriminatory treatment. 5. Reasonableness of the Restrictions Imposed under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India: The court assessed whether the restrictions imposed by the government were reasonable and in the public interest, as required under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The court upheld the restrictions, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of domestic farmers with those of importers. The court cited the doctrine of proportionality, noting that the measures were necessary to protect the domestic agricultural sector and were not arbitrary or excessive. Conclusion: The court concluded that the restrictions imposed by the government were justified and reasonable, considering the broader public interest and the need to protect domestic farmers. The petition was dismissed, and the notifications issued by the government were upheld. The court emphasized the importance of balancing fundamental rights with public interest, in line with the principles of proportionality and judicial review.
|
