Implied power to revise trade restrictions under foreign trade law upheld, with remaining policy challenges remanded.

The power to fix a trade rate or value under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 includes the implied power to revise it, so the Central Government's notification was not invalid on that ground. Restrictions placed on DGFT as an implementing authority under the Foreign Trade Policy did not limit the Government's own statutory power, and reliance on the Customs Act definition of prohibited goods was misplaced. The writ was also remanded because substantive grounds on reasonableness and scope of the policy had not been adjudicated and required fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the impugned notification revising the rate/value fixed earlier under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 was beyond the Central Government's power; (ii) whether the writ petition had to be remanded for consideration of grounds not adjudicated by the trial court.

Issue (i): whether the impugned notification revising the rate/value fixed earlier under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 was beyond the Central Government's power.

Analysis: The power to fix a rate or value necessarily carries the power to revise it. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 is a regulatory statute enabling the Central Government to frame and alter trade regulation in aid of development and control of foreign trade. The restriction placed on DGFT as an implementing authority under the Foreign Trade Policy did not curtail the Central Government's own power under Section 5. Reliance on the definition of prohibited goods under the Customs Act was also misplaced for judging the validity of the policy notification.

Conclusion: The challenge to the legality of the notification on the grounds accepted by the trial court was rejected, and the notification could not be struck down on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition had to be remanded for consideration of grounds not adjudicated by the trial court.

Analysis: Certain substantive grounds, including challenge to the reasonableness and scope of the policy, had been raised but not considered by the trial court. Since those issues required adjudication on merits, the proper course was to set aside the order to that extent and remit the matter for fresh hearing on the remaining grounds.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for rehearing on the unaddressed issues.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court set aside the trial court's reasoning on the validity of the notification, upheld the Central Government's power to revise the trade measure, and sent the writ petition back for reconsideration of the remaining grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Central Government has statutory power to fix a trade restriction or rate under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, that power includes the implied authority to revise it, and administrative limits on the implementing authority do not narrow the Government's own statutory power.

---