Foreign trade import controls upheld where DGFT authentication, non-laying, and piperine conditions did not invalidate notifications.

Import notifications regulating pepper were upheld as valid exercises of foreign trade policy. The Central Government's power to regulate imports remained intact where the notifications were issued in its name and the DGFT only authenticated and published them, so competence was not undermined. The requirement to lay the notifications before Parliament was treated as directory because the statute prescribed no consequence for non-laying, so non-compliance did not invalidate them. The 6% piperine condition was not inconsistent with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as the imports were for export-oriented oleoresin manufacture, not domestic consumption. The classification between ordinary importers and exempted categories was held rational and proportionate, with a valid nexus to protecting the domestic market.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the impugned import notifications could be invalidated on the ground that the Director General of Foreign Trade lacked competence to issue them, (ii) whether failure to lay the notifications before Parliament rendered them non est, (iii) whether the piperine-content condition was void for inconsistency with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and (iv) whether the notifications were arbitrary, discriminatory, or disproportionate.

Issue (i): whether the impugned import notifications could be invalidated on the ground that the Director General of Foreign Trade lacked competence to issue them.

Analysis: The power to regulate imports and to formulate and amend foreign trade policy vests in the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, while the Director General of Foreign Trade is to advise and carry out that policy. The notifications themselves stated that they were issued by the Central Government, and the material on record showed that the decision had been taken at the governmental level, with the DGFT performing the act of publication and authentication. Mere issuance in the name of the DGFT did not establish lack of authority.

Conclusion: The challenge to competence failed and was answered against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether failure to lay the notifications before Parliament rendered them non est.

Analysis: Section 19(3) requires laying of rules and orders before Parliament, but it does not prescribe any consequence for non-laying. In the absence of an express statutory consequence, the requirement was treated as directory rather than mandatory. Non-compliance therefore did not invalidate the notifications.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-laying failed and was answered against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): whether the piperine-content condition was void for inconsistency with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Analysis: The importers were acting under licences and permissions governed by the foreign trade regime, not a food-law regime. The overriding effect of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is confined to other food-related laws, and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 is not such a law. In any event, the 6% piperine condition applied to imports meant for oleoresin manufacture and export, not for domestic consumption.

Conclusion: The challenge based on the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 failed and was answered against the petitioners.

Issue (iv): whether the notifications were arbitrary, discriminatory, or disproportionate.

Analysis: The classification between ordinary importers and the exempted categories was based on the different end use of the imported pepper, since the exempted categories imported for export-oriented purposes while the others imported for consumption in India. A rational nexus existed between the classification and the object of preventing the influx of cheap quality pepper into the domestic market. The restriction was also within the limits of permissible economic regulation and did not violate the right to carry on trade.

Conclusion: The challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed and was answered against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The notifications regulating pepper imports were upheld as valid exercises of foreign trade policy, and all writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters of foreign trade and economic policy, a notification issued in the name of the Central Government will not be invalid merely because the DGFT authenticated it, and a statutory laying requirement without an express consequence for non-compliance is ordinarily directory unless the statute clearly provides otherwise.

---