Import regulation of betel/areca nut by fixing minimum c.i.f. value upheld as valid policy and binding on customs

Import regulation of betel/areca nuts by fixing a minimum c.i.f. value was upheld as a policy measure and not ultra vires. The notification issued by authenticated executive act was treated as issuance by the Central Government, so no unlawful delegation to the DGFT was found and procedural requirements were satisfied. The Central Governments broad power to prohibit, restrict or regulate imports was affirmed, with such orders deemed to attract customs law consequences and tariff application mutatis mutandis; consequently the principle that a special law displaces a general law was held inapplicable to negate the impugned restriction, and the challenge was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) in issuing the impugned Notification.
2. Validity of the Notification under the specific procedure prescribed by the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
3. Applicability of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in relation to the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the DGFT in Issuing the Impugned Notification:
The primary issue was whether the DGFT issued Notification No. 15 (RE-2008)/2004-09, dated 4-6-2008, without jurisdiction, given the specific bar under Section 6(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The court examined Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the Foreign Trade Act, which delineate the powers of the Central Government and the DGFT. Section 6(3) explicitly prohibits the delegation of powers under Sections 3, 5, 15, 16, and 19 to the DGFT. However, it was argued that the DGFT did not act under delegated authority but was merely authenticated by the Central Government to issue the notification. The court referred to the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, and the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 2002, which allow such authentication. The court cited precedents from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, which upheld similar notifications issued by the DGFT. The court concluded that the DGFT did not exercise statutory powers but was authenticated to issue the notification on behalf of the Central Government, thus not violating Section 6(3).

2. Validity of the Notification under the Specific Procedure Prescribed by the Foreign Trade Act:
The court addressed whether the notification, even if authenticated by the Central Government, followed the procedure prescribed under Section 6(3) of the Foreign Trade Act. The court reiterated that the DGFT was not acting under delegated power but was merely executing a policy decision of the Central Government. The court emphasized that the notification was issued in public interest to protect domestic betel nut farmers from low-priced imports. The court found that the policy decision was backed by sufficient data and deliberations, including consultations with the Directorate of Areca nut and Spices Development and import data from the Directorate-General of Commercial Statistics & Intelligence. The court concluded that the notification was issued in compliance with Section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act and did not involve any procedural irregularities.

3. Applicability of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act:
The third issue was whether the Central Government could impose restrictions on imports and fix values under the Foreign Trade Act or if such actions should be governed by the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act. The court examined the interplay between the Foreign Trade Act and the Customs Act, noting that Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade Act deems goods restricted under it to be prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Asian Food Industries, which held that the Foreign Trade Act provides a composite scheme for regulating foreign trade, and any restrictions under it would automatically invoke the provisions of the Customs Act. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Agricas LLP, which affirmed that the Central Government has wide powers under Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade Act to regulate imports and exports, and such actions do not require separate notifications under the Customs Act. The court concluded that the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant (special things derogate from general things) does not apply, and the Central Government's actions under the Foreign Trade Act are valid and enforceable.

Conclusion:
The court found no illegality in the issuance of the impugned notification dated 4-6-2008, as it was an expression of a policy decision taken by the Central Government and authenticated by the DGFT. The court set aside the Learned Single Judge's order and dismissed all the writ petitions, allowing the writ appeals filed by the Union of India and the departments.

---