Central Government trade notification remains valid where DGFT authentication is an authorised mode under the rules.

A notification amending Exim Code entries was upheld because it was, in substance, issued by the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992. The challenge failed on authentication: Rule 12 of the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 2002 permits the DGFT to sign and authenticate instruments made in the name of the President of India, and such authentication does not change the source of the power exercised. The Court treated the DGFT's signature as a valid mode of authentication and rejected the claim that the notification was ultra vires for want of authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned notifications modifying the Exim Code were invalid on the ground that they were not issued by the Central Government and were not validly authenticated by the Director General of Foreign Trade.

Analysis: The governing scheme under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 vests the power to frame foreign trade policy and issue orders in the Central Government, while Section 6(3) limits delegation of the powers under Section 3. The impugned notifications expressly stated that the Central Government had amended the relevant Exim Code entries, and the challenge therefore turned on authentication rather than competence. Rule 12 of the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 2002 permits the Director General of Foreign Trade, and certain other officers, to sign and authenticate instruments made in the name of the President of India. On that basis, the signature of the DGFT was treated as a valid mode of authentication of an order issued by the Central Government. The Court also accepted the view taken in earlier decisions that such authentication does not alter the source of power when the notification is in substance issued by the Central Government.

Conclusion: The notification was held to be valid and the challenge based on lack of authority and defective authentication failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification expressly states that it is issued by the Central Government, authentication by the DGFT under the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 2002 is valid and does not render the notification ultra vires the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992.

---