Foreign trade policy limits on DGFT power: public notice could not exclude precious metal exports from advance authorisation.

Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 vests power to frame and amend the Foreign Trade Policy in the Central Government, while the DGFT's role is limited to advising and implementing that policy. A public notice issued under the Handbook of Procedures cannot be used to alter the substantive policy framework, even if it is issued under the procedure-setting power in Paragraph 1.03 of FTP 2015-2020. On that basis, the exclusion of gold medallions, coins, and fully mechanised jewellery from advance authorisation was treated as a substantive policy change, not a procedural clarification, and the notice was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Directorate General of Foreign Trade could, by public notice issued under the Handbook of Procedures, exclude gold medallions, coins, and jewellery/articles manufactured by fully mechanized process from the benefit of advance authorisation, and whether such exclusion amounted to an impermissible amendment of the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis: Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 vests the power to formulate and amend the Foreign Trade Policy in the Central Government. Section 6 confines the role of the Director General of Foreign Trade to advising the Central Government and carrying out the policy, while the power to issue public notices under Paragraph 1.03 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 is only procedural and cannot be used to alter the substantive policy framework. The policy itself, particularly Paragraphs 4.32 and 4.37, provided the relevant export and advance authorisation scheme for precious metals and related jewellery items. By excluding the specified export items from advance authorisation through public notice, the DGFT in substance changed the policy rather than merely regulating procedure. Such a change could be made only by the Central Government under Section 5.

Conclusion: The public notice was held to be beyond the DGFT's power and jurisdiction and was therefore liable to be quashed.

---