Minimum Import Price for agricultural imports upheld despite non-compliance with laying requirement; notifications remain valid, Parliament to be informed.

Validity of imposing Minimum Import Price conditions on certain agricultural imports was assessed under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. The instrument imposing a Minimum Import Price was treated in substance as a restriction traceable to the executive power to prohibit or regulate imports, validating its legal basis and rejecting challenges based on nomenclature. The statutory requirement to lay delegated legislation before Parliament was characterised as directory rather than mandatory, so non-compliance did not invalidate the notifications; however, the Central Government must place existing notifications before each House and afford affected parties an opportunity to file objections, which must be considered on hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned notifications fixing Minimum Import Price (MIP) were ultra vires Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 because they were issued/published by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade instead of the Central Government or because they were styled as notifications rather than Orders; (ii) Whether failure to lay the Orders/notifications before both Houses of Parliament in terms of Section 19(3) of the FTDR Act renders the impugned instruments void.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned instruments imposing MIP are invalid as not being Orders made by the Central Government under Section 3(2) of the FTDR Act.

Analysis: The power to prohibit, restrict or regulate imports is conferred on the Central Government by Section 3(2) of the FTDR Act. The impugned instruments record publication by the Ministry/Directorate and recite exercise of power under Section 3. Authority to act may be traced to the Central Government even where publication is effected by DGFT. Established authorities recognise that validity of subordinate legislation is determined by substance and traceability to enabling statute rather than by nomenclature or stylistic formalities; errors in reciting the source or labelling do not defeat statutory competence where the power is otherwise traceable.

Conclusion: The challenge that the instruments are invalid because they were issued/published by DGFT or styled as notifications rather than Orders is rejected; the instruments are intra vires Section 3(2) of the FTDR Act. Conclusion is against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with Section 19(3) (laying the Order/notification before both Houses of Parliament) renders the impugned instruments void.

Analysis: Section 19(3) requires that every Order be laid before each House for a statutory period and contemplates that Parliament may modify or annul such Order, saving validity of prior acts. Authorities interpreting similar laying provisions have held that such provisions are generally directory where no consequence of automatic invalidation is prescribed; the Legislature's omission of a termination consequence and precedent decisions establish that failure to lay does not, by itself, render the instrument void. Comparative statutory provisions and authoritative decisions support treating the laying requirement under Section 19(3) as directory.

Conclusion: The challenge that non-laying under Section 19(3) invalidates the instruments is rejected; the laying requirement is directory and does not itself vitiate the impugned instruments. Conclusion is against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notifications/orders imposing Minimum Import Prices are valid and the writ petitions challenging their validity are dismissed; petitioners retain statutory remedies (filing objections to show-cause notices or appeals against adjudication) subject to the terms specified in the order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a subordinate legislative instrument effects a restriction traceable to the enabling statute, courts will look to substance and traceability to the statutory power rather than nomenclature or formal defects, and a laying requirement that prescribes no automatic consequence for non-compliance is directory and does not, by itself, render the instrument void.

---