2019 (11) TMI 688 - SC - Customs

Scope of Section 20 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Prohibited goods or not - powers conferred by Clause 8(1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1986 - HELD THAT - The appellants are not in a position to point out as to how the subject order dated 14-11-1986 would be covered by the savings clause under sub-sections (2) or (3) of the Section 20 of the Act. Even the saving provision under the General Clauses Act will be of no avail to the appellants for the reasons mentioned hitherto. For, a quasi judicial order passed in exercise of powers under the Statutory Order which stands repealed along with the repealed Act, is not saved especially when it will be per se repugnant to 1992 Act and defeat the spirit of opening of the import regime for the stated goods - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to action based on order dated 14-11-1986 under Imports (Control) Order, 1986 post Foreign Trade Act, 1992.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the challenge against action taken based on an order dated 14-11-1986 under the Imports (Control) Order, 1986 after the enactment of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The key issue revolves around whether the quasi-judicial order passed by the Competent Authority under the 1986 Order can be sustained post the implementation of the 1992 Act. The Court emphasizes that the import of goods by a specific entity in 1997 was not prohibited under the 1992 Act. Therefore, the appellants needed to establish that the Act contained a savings clause to uphold the order, which they failed to do.

The Court delves into the provisions of the 1992 Act and highlights that there is no provision to save the quasi-judicial order passed under the 1986 Order. The judgment stresses that any interpretation supporting the continuation of the prohibition on goods allowed under the 1992 Act would contradict the legislative intent behind the newer Act. The Court concludes that taking action against the respondents based on an order from 1986 post the implementation of the 1992 Act is legally untenable.

The judgment further examines Section 20 of the 1992 Act regarding repeal and savings. It is noted that the appellants could not demonstrate how the order from 1986 falls within the ambit of the savings clause outlined in the Act. Even the saving provision under the General Clauses Act was deemed inadequate. The Court reiterates that a quasi-judicial order under a repealed Statutory Order, which conflicts with the spirit of a newer Act, cannot be preserved.

In conclusion, the Court dismisses the appeals, stating that no interference is warranted. The judgment emphasizes that a quasi-judicial order issued under a repealed Statutory Order, which contradicts the essence of a subsequent Act, cannot be upheld. The appeals are consequently rejected, and any pending applications are disposed of accordingly.