2020 (2) TMI 236 - HC - Customs

Import of Pigeon (peas (Cajanus cajan) / Toor Dal - Import of restricted item or not - sections 3 and 6 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 - validity of N/N. 19/2015-2020 dated 05-08-201897 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Section 3 of the Act confers the power on the Central Government to make orders and polices. Section 6 of the Act prohibits the exercise of this power, particularly under Section 3 of the Act by any other Officer. The powers under Section 3, 5, 15, 16 and 19 of the Act, cannot be exercised by any one else or be delegated. But if the impugned notifications are seen, they very clearly state as follows the Central Government hereby amends . Thus, it is clear that it is the Central Government alone that has amended these rules. Apart from that, the points raised by the learned Assistant Solicitor General also deserve consideration. The Central Government has to function through a human agency, who has to sign and authenticate these orders. The Government, therefore, passed the orders in the name of President of India called the Authentication of orders and Instruments Rules, 2002. As far as the DGFT is concerned, the power has been given to the Director General of Foreign Trade, the Additional Director General and others to sign to authenticate all instruments made and executed in the name of the President of India (Rule 12). The rule about authentication is very clear and admits of only one interpretation. This Court is therefore of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The notification clearly states that it is issued by the Central Government. 2002 Rules that are produced permit the authentication thereof by the DGFT - this Court holds that the challenge to the notification has to fail. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the modification of Exim Code by importers and dealers of committees.
2. Authority to make changes in the Exim Code.
3. Validity of notifications modifying Exim Code.
4. Authentication of the impugned notifications.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The writ petition was filed by importers and dealers challenging the modification of the Exim Code, specifically related to pigeon peas and various pulses. The petitioners argued that the modifications were illegal, arbitrary, and violated constitutional provisions and the Foreign Trade Act. They sought orders to set aside the notifications and trade notices to permit importation. The main contention was that only the Central Government had the authority to make such changes.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that under the Foreign Trade Act, only the Central Government had the power to pass orders related to foreign trade policies. They cited relevant sections of the Act to support their argument and relied on previous judgments to emphasize that only the Central Government could issue such notifications. The petitioner contended that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) did not have the authority to make these changes.

3. In response, the Assistant Solicitor General representing the Union of India defended the notifications, stating that they were issued by the Central Government and authenticated by the DGFT as per the rules. He referred to specific rules governing authentication of orders by nominated officials and cited judgments from other High Courts supporting the validity of the notifications. The Assistant Solicitor General argued that the notifications were properly issued by the Central Government.

4. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Foreign Trade Act, particularly Sections 3 and 6, to determine the authority to make changes in the Exim Code. It noted that the notifications clearly stated that they were amendments made by the Central Government. The Court also considered the rules governing authentication of orders and instruments, concluding that the notifications were validly signed and authenticated. Relying on previous judgments and the Allocation of Business Rules, the Court held that the notifications were issued by the Central Government and dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the challenges raised.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the validity of the notifications modifying the Exim Code, ruling in favor of the Central Government's authority to make such changes and authenticate the orders through the DGFT. The petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.