Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported goods, described as not meant for pharmaceutical or drug use, could be subjected to the Form 10 licence requirement and treated as drugs for human use, and whether the consequential orders directing re-export and related restrictions could be sustained.
Analysis: The writ appeals arose from orders directing the importers to obtain a Form 10 licence and permitting the authorities to treat the goods as drugs for human use. The Court held that the importers had complied with Rule 43 read with Schedule D of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and that the statutory exemption could not be displaced by executive action. It also held that a settlement or conditions recorded in proceedings before another High Court could not override the statutory framework applicable to the present imports. The impugned directions were therefore unsustainable.
Conclusion: The requirement of a Form 10 licence was held inapplicable on the facts, and the orders treating the goods as drugs for human use were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The importers were entitled to release of the goods on verification of compliance with the prescribed rule and label requirements, while valuation issues were left open for adjudication before the appropriate forum.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an importer satisfies the conditions of a statutory exemption under the governing rules, the administration cannot impose a contrary licensing requirement or other restriction by executive direction.