Import policy cannot be amended by public notice when statutory power remains with the Central Government.
Where the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act reserves import policy-making to the Central Government, a subordinate authority cannot add restrictions through a public notice or administrative instruction absent valid delegation or a gazetted amendment. Conditions on drawal of lots, quantity limits, time limits, single application and debarment for poppy seed imports were therefore treated as an impermissible alteration of the Exim Code and held beyond jurisdiction. The court also accepted locus standi because the importer-exporter registration and intended import activity were directly affected by the impugned notice, creating a real business grievance. The public notice was quashed.
Issues: (i) Whether the fourth respondent had authority to impose conditions in the public notice beyond the conditions prescribed in the Exim Code for import of poppy seeds. (ii) Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the public notice.
Issue (i): Whether the fourth respondent had authority to impose conditions in the public notice beyond the conditions prescribed in the Exim Code for import of poppy seeds.
Analysis: The power to formulate and amend the export and import policy vests in the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. The role of the fourth respondent is confined to implementation of the policy and compliance with the prescribed conditions for registration of import contracts. In the absence of a notification in the official gazette authorising the fourth respondent to add further restrictions, the conditions relating to drawal of lots, quantity limits, time limits, single application and debarment amounted to an impermissible amendment of the policy. Administrative instructions or letters could not override the statutory policy. The powers under the narcotic law operated in a different field and did not authorise restrictions under the Exim Code.
Conclusion: The additional conditions in the public notice were without jurisdiction and illegal.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the public notice.
Analysis: The petitioner possessed importer-exporter registration and had pleaded an intention to import poppy seeds, but could not apply because of the impugned restrictions. The public notice directly affected the petitioner's business interests and imposed restraints on import activity. The grievance was therefore real and not merely academic.
Conclusion: The petitioner had locus standi to maintain the writ petition.
Final Conclusion: The public notice was quashed, and the writ petition succeeded because the impugned restrictions exceeded the statutory authority available to the fourth respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute reserves the power to frame or amend import policy to the Central Government, a subordinate authority cannot impose additional import restrictions through a public notice or administrative instruction in the absence of a valid delegation or gazetted amendment.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
