Export canalisation through selected agencies upheld as a valid regulatory control under export policy

Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, read with clause 6(h) of the Exports Control Order, 1958, was interpreted as wide enough to permit canalisation of manganese ore exports through selected agencies, including the State Trading Corporation. The export policy and notifications were treated as regulatory measures aimed at orderly export, foreign exchange earnings, regular supply, and quality control, so the preference given to established exporters and the State Trading Corporation was upheld as a rational classification and not an unconstitutional monopoly. A dissenting view considered the scheme effectively monopolistic and lacking fair safeguards for miners.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and clause 6(h) of the Exports Control Order, 1958 authorised canalisation of manganese ore exports through selected agencies, including the State Trading Corporation. (ii) Whether the impugned export policy and notifications imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and clause 6(h) of the Exports Control Order, 1958 authorised canalisation of manganese ore exports through selected agencies, including the State Trading Corporation.

Analysis: Section 3 conferred a wide power to prohibit, restrict, or otherwise control exports. That power was held to include not merely control at the point of export but also measures intimately connected with regulating export trade, including channelising exports through selected agencies. Clause 6(h) was read as permitting the licensing authority to direct exports through special or specialised agencies or channels, and the expression was construed broadly enough to cover an agency chosen for the purpose of achieving the export policy, even if it was not an expert exporter in the narrow commercial sense.

Conclusion: The canalisation mechanism was within the statutory power and clause 6(h) was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned export policy and notifications imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The majority held that the restriction was regulatory and was directed to securing orderly export, foreign exchange earnings, regular supply, and quality control. The classification between established shippers, mine-owners with prior export performance, and newcomers was treated as rational in the context of export control. The preference given to the State Trading Corporation was upheld as a permissible method of control and not as an unconstitutional monopoly. The Court held that no legally enforceable right of the appellant had been violated.

Conclusion: The restriction was held to be reasonable and constitutionally valid, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The export control scheme and the impugned notifications were upheld, and the appellant was held not entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to prohibit, restrict, or control exports includes the power to canalise a commodity through selected agencies, and a restriction imposed in furtherance of orderly export policy will be valid if the resulting classification and preference are rationally related to the object of export control.

Dissenting Opinion: Subba Rao, J. held that the scheme practically created a monopoly in favour of the State Trading Corporation without definite rules or fair safeguards for miners like the appellant, and that the restriction was unreasonable. He would have treated the appellant's grievance as one warranting relief, though he noted that the appeal had become infructuous for the period sought.

---