Supreme Court validates FTDR Act notifications, clarifies DGFT role. "Total quantity" means aggregate. Central Govt's power upheld.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of notifications and a Trade Notice issued under the FTDR Act, finding them intra vires. It clarified the role of the DGFT as ministerial in issuing notifications under the Central Government's authority. The Court interpreted "total quantity" in notifications as aggregate quantity, not per licensee. It held that Section 9A does not limit the Central Government's power to impose restrictions under Section 3(2). Importers' reliance on interim orders for imports was deemed not bona fide. Imports contrary to notifications would be addressed under the Customs Act, and writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notifications and Trade Notice under FTDR Act.
2. Role and authority of DGFT.
3. Interpretation of "total quantity" in notifications.
4. Applicability of Section 9A of FTDR Act.
5. Bona fide imports under interim orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notifications and Trade Notice under FTDR Act:
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the notifications dated 29th March 2019 and the Trade Notice dated 16th April 2019 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The Court found that the notifications were issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), and not by the DGFT, which merely performed the ministerial act of publication. The notifications were held to be intra vires and not ultra vires, as they were issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Article 77 of the Constitution.

2. Role and Authority of DGFT:
The Court clarified that the DGFT, an authority constituted under the FTDR Act, is responsible for advising the Central Government on foreign trade policy and carrying out that policy. The DGFT's role in issuing the notifications was merely ministerial, and the decision to amend and issue the notifications was made by the Central Government. Therefore, the DGFT's actions were within its authority, and the notifications were validly issued.

3. Interpretation of "Total Quantity" in Notifications:
The Court rejected the importers' contention that the expression "total quantity" in the notifications referred to the quantity per licensee. The Court held that the notifications expressly used the term "total quantity" to refer to the aggregate quantity of the commodity specified, which could be imported. The interpretation suggested by the importers was found to be contrary to the express language of the notifications and would frustrate the intent and object of restricting imports by prescribing a quota.

4. Applicability of Section 9A of FTDR Act:
The importers argued that the notifications imposed "quantitative restrictions" under Section 9A of the FTDR Act, which requires specific conditions and procedures to be followed. The Court, however, held that Section 9A is an enabling provision that allows the Central Government to impose quantitative restrictions after following the prescribed procedure. It does not limit the Central Government's power to impose restrictions under Section 3(2) of the FTDR Act. The Court concluded that the Central Government has the authority to impose quantitative restrictions under Section 3(2) without necessarily invoking Section 9A.

5. Bona Fide Imports Under Interim Orders:
The importers relied on interim orders passed by various High Courts to continue importing despite the notifications. The Court found that the importers acted for personal gain and profit, knowing that similar petitions had been dismissed by other High Courts. The Court held that the importers could not claim bona fide belief in their right to import and would face the consequences in law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notifications and the Trade Notice, rejecting the importers' challenges. The imports made under interim orders were deemed contrary to the notifications and Trade Notices and would be dealt with under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court dismissed the writ petitions subject to the observations regarding statutory appeals, if any, preferred by the importers.

What is Not Decided:
The Court did not examine or decide the statutory appeals against orders suspending or terminating import-export codes, leaving them to be decided in accordance with the law.

---