Court upholds validity of Foreign Trade Act notifications, dismisses challenge on delegation of powers

The court dismissed the petitions challenging the validity of certain notifications issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. It held that the notifications were validly issued by the Central Government and authenticated by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) in accordance with rules. The court rejected arguments against the delegation of powers to the DGFT and found that the requirement to lay orders before Parliament was directory, not mandatory. The petitions were dismissed, and the notifications were upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification No.19/2015-2020 dated 5.8.2017 and other related notifications.
2. Authority of the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to issue notifications under section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
3. Compliance with section 19(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 regarding the laying of orders before Parliament.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notification No.19/2015-2020 dated 5.8.2017 and other related notifications:
The petitioners challenged the notifications on the grounds that they were issued by the DGFT, who allegedly lacked the authority to do so under section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. They argued that the sudden change in the import policy caused significant financial losses and operational disruptions. The respondents countered that the notifications were issued by the Central Government and merely authenticated by the DGFT, in accordance with the Authentication (Orders and Other Instruments) Rules, 2002.

2. Authority of the DGFT to issue notifications under section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992:
The petitioners contended that under section 6(3) of the Act, the powers under sections 3, 5, 15, 16, and 19 could not be delegated to the DGFT. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports, which held that such powers must be exercised by the Central Government. The respondents argued that the DGFT only authenticated the notifications, which were issued by the Central Government. The court agreed with the respondents, noting that the notifications were indeed issued by the Central Government and merely authenticated by the DGFT as per the Authentication Rules.

3. Compliance with section 19(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 regarding the laying of orders before Parliament:
The petitioners argued that the requirements of section 19(3) were not met, as the notifications were not laid before both Houses of Parliament. The court, referencing the Indian Evidence Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana, concluded that the requirement to lay orders before Parliament is directory, not mandatory. The court presumed that official acts are regularly performed unless proven otherwise.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the impugned notifications were validly issued by the Central Government and merely authenticated by the DGFT. The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding the delegation of powers and compliance with section 19(3) of the Act. The notifications were upheld, and the petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

---