9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 997 - SC - CustomsProhibition on import of Palm oil Violation of Article 14 Vide Notifications No. No.39 and 63 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 import of palm oil was prohibited through all ports of Kerala Appellants challenging validity of these Notifications on ground that they were ultra vires provisions of Section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and unconstitutional as offending Article 14 of Constitution Held that - Since import price of crude palm oil has been much less than price of coconut oil, perception of Coconut growers in State of Kerala was that it was affecting their livelihood Huge import of palm oil had led to price decline in coconut It is more than abundantly clear that restriction is imposed keeping in view welfare of farmers in the State Respondents have been able to demonstrate intelligible basis for issuing impugned Notifications having rational nexus with objectives sought to be achieved Thus, it cannot be said that notification was violative of Article 14 of Constitution No material produced on record to show how impugned Notification would affect interests of consumers Section 3 empowers Central Government to make provision for (i) prohibiting; (ii) restricting; or (iii) otherwise regulating the import or export of goods or services or technology , such action cannot be arbitrary or irrational and should be backed sound reasons Calcutta High Court in Kalindi Woolen Mills (P) Ltd. 1994 (2) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA overlooked aforesaid pertinent aspect which gives sufficient powers to Central Government to act in manner it has acted Therefore, no fault found with view taken by High Court upholding Notifications in question Decided against Appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notifications under Section 3 of The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. 2. Constitutionality of the Notifications under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notifications under Section 3 of The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992: The appellants challenged the Notifications No.39 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 dated 16.10.2007 and No.63 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 dated 24.12.2007 issued by the Central Government, prohibiting the import of palm oil through ports in Kerala. They argued that these Notifications were ultra vires the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, contending that the Act did not confer such power on the Central Government. The High Court found that the power for issuing such Notifications could be traced to Section 3 of the Act and upheld the Notifications. The Supreme Court examined the scope and ambit of Section 3, which empowers the Central Government to make provisions for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports and increasing exports. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 allows the Central Government to make provisions for prohibiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating the import or export of goods or services or technology. The Court noted the crucial words "subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the Order," which provide wide amplitude to the Central Government to make exceptions, including restricting imports through specific ports. The Court held that the Notifications were valid under Section 3 of the Act, as they were issued to achieve a public good, specifically to protect the interests of coconut farmers in Kerala. The Court emphasized that the power to regulate imports includes the power to impose restrictions based on geographical areas, as long as such actions are not arbitrary or irrational and are backed by sound reasons. 2. Constitutionality of the Notifications under Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The appellants argued that the Notifications were unconstitutional as they offended Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They contended that the selective restriction on the import of palm oil through ports in Kerala resulted in invidious discrimination and was manifestly arbitrary, irrational, and unreasonable. They also argued that there was no rational objective sought to be achieved with such Notifications. The High Court found complete justification and rationality in issuing the Notifications, stating that they were issued in the public interest to protect the livelihood of about 35 lakh coconut farmers in Kerala. The Court noted that coconut oil and palm oil are competing products, and the import of cheaper crude palm oil adversely affected the prices of coconut oil, impacting the farmers' livelihood. The Notifications were issued based on representations from the farmers, the Coconut Development Board, and the State Government, highlighting the adverse effects of palm oil imports on the coconut economy. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the Notifications were issued to protect the interests of marginalized coconut farmers in Kerala, which constituted a rational objective. The Court held that the classification based on geographical area was permissible and had a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. The Court also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in policy matters, stating that once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, the Court should respect such a decision of the Executive. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the interests of consumers were not considered, noting that no such case was made out in the High Court or in the special leave petition. The Court concluded that the Notifications were not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as they were based on intelligible differentia and had a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity and constitutionality of the Notifications issued by the Central Government.
|
