2020 (2) TMI 236 - HC - Customs

Court upholds validity of Exim Code modifications by Central Government, dismisses petitions.

BLR Dhall Mill Versus Union of India

BLR Dhall Mill Versus Union of India - 2020 (372) E.L.T. 305 (A. P.) Issues:1. Challenge to the modification of Exim Code by importers and dealers of committees.2. Authority to make changes in the Exim Code.3. Validity of notifications modifying Exim Code.4. Authentication of the impugned notifications.Detailed Analysis:1. The writ petition was filed by importers and dealers challenging the modification of the Exim Code, specifically related to pigeon peas and various pulses. The petitioners argued that the modifications were illegal, arbitrary, and violated constitutional provisions and the Foreign Trade Act. They sought orders to set aside the notifications and trade notices to permit importation. The main contention was that only the Central Government had the authority to make such changes.2. The petitioner's counsel argued that under the Foreign Trade Act, only the Central Government had the power to pass orders related to foreign trade policies. They cited relevant sections of the Act to support their argument and relied on previous judgments to emphasize that only the Central Government could issue such notifications. The petitioner contended that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) did not have the authority to make these changes.3. In response, the Assistant Solicitor General representing the Union of India defended the notifications, stating that they were issued by the Central Government and authenticated by the DGFT as per the rules. He referred to specific rules governing authentication of orders by nominated officials and cited judgments from other High Courts supporting the validity of the notifications. The Assistant Solicitor General argued that the notifications were properly issued by the Central Government.4. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Foreign Trade Act, particularly Sections 3 and 6, to determine the authority to make changes in the Exim Code. It noted that the notifications clearly stated that they were amendments made by the Central Government. The Court also considered the rules governing authentication of orders and instruments, concluding that the notifications were validly signed and authenticated. Relying on previous judgments and the Allocation of Business Rules, the Court held that the notifications were issued by the Central Government and dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the challenges raised.In conclusion, the Court upheld the validity of the notifications modifying the Exim Code, ruling in favor of the Central Government's authority to make such changes and authenticate the orders through the DGFT. The petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.