TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the notification fixing minimum c.i.f. value for import of betel nuts was issued without jurisdiction by the DGFT in view of the bar on delegation under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, or whether it was a Central Government notification authenticated through the DGFT; (ii) Whether the Central Government could validly impose such import restriction and price fixation under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 instead of proceeding only under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Issue (i): Whether the notification fixing minimum c.i.f. value for import of betel nuts was issued without jurisdiction by the DGFT in view of the bar on delegation under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, or whether it was a Central Government notification authenticated through the DGFT.
Analysis: The statutory scheme vests the power to frame foreign trade policy and to issue orders restricting or regulating imports in the Central Government under Sections 3 and 5, while Section 6(3) forbids delegation of those powers to the DGFT. The notification itself stated that it was issued by the Central Government in exercise of Section 5 read with the foreign trade policy, and the DGFT's role was only authentication under the constitutional business and authentication rules. On that footing, the issuance was treated as an act of the Central Government and not an exercise of delegated statutory power by the DGFT.
Conclusion: The notification was not invalid for want of jurisdiction, and the objection based on Section 6(3) failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the Central Government could validly impose such import restriction and price fixation under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 instead of proceeding only under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Analysis: Section 3(2) confers wide power on the Central Government to prohibit, restrict, or regulate imports, and Section 3(3) ensures that such orders operate with the effect contemplated by the Customs Act, 1962. The foreign trade law was read as a composite regulatory scheme, and the customs enactments were held to apply mutatis mutandis once a restriction was imposed under the foreign trade power. The Court held that the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali did not displace the Central Government's authority under the foreign trade legislation, and the policy decision was also supported by relevant data and materials.
Conclusion: The Central Government was competent to impose the restriction under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and recourse solely to the Customs Act, 1962 or the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was not necessary.
Final Conclusion: The common order of the Single Judge was set aside, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the import restriction notification was upheld as a valid policy measure of the Central Government.
Ratio Decidendi: A notification expressed to be issued by the Central Government and authenticated by the DGFT is valid notwithstanding the bar on delegation, and the Central Government's power under the foreign trade law to restrict imports operates as a composite scheme to which the customs law applies mutatis mutandis.
TaxTMI 
