TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court stays notifications linked to import restrictions amid legal challenges. Compliance and review emphasized.</h1> <h3>Ganesh Overseas Versus Union Of India Through, the Joint Secretary</h3> Ganesh Overseas Versus Union Of India Through, the Joint Secretary - TMI Issues:- Challenge to notifications issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade- Allegation of unreasonable restriction on import of commodities- Violation of Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992- Stay on notifications by the Madras High Court- Prima facie assessment of the legality of the orders issued by the Director GeneralAnalysis:The petitioner challenged the notifications issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, alleging unreasonable restrictions on the import of commodities like peas. The petitioner contended that the Director General had wrongly exercised power in violation of Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992. The Madras High Court had stayed the notifications in a related matter, prompting the petitioner to seek similar relief.In a previous round of litigation, the court had already passed an interim order in a connected matter, indicating a history of legal challenges to the impugned notifications. The court noted that the orders issued by the Director General did not appear to align with the requirements of Section 3 of the Foreign Trade Act, necessitating further examination.The respondent's counsel requested time to verify the outcome of the interim order pending before the Madras High Court. The court granted two weeks for the respondent to file a reply to the writ petition. Meanwhile, the operation and effect of the challenged notifications were stayed. The respondent's counsel was also permitted to move an application for vacation of the interim order if necessary.The court scheduled the next hearing for 30th October 2018, indicating a continuation of the legal proceedings in this matter. The judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring compliance with legal provisions and the need for a thorough review of the notifications in question.
TaxTMI 