TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Import Control Regulations as Reasonable Restriction on Public Interest</h1> <h3>GLASS CHATONS IMPORTERS & USERS’ ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> GLASS CHATONS IMPORTERS & USERS’ ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 115 (SC), 1961 AIR 1514, 1962 (1) SCR 862 Issues:1. Protection of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g), Article 31, and Article 14 of the Constitution regarding import of glass chatons.2. Validity of para 6(h) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, and Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947.3. Reasonableness of canalization of imports through special agencies or channels.4. Allegation of denial of equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution.Analysis:1. The petitioners sought protection of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g), Article 31, and Article 14 of the Constitution concerning the import of glass chatons, which were regulated by the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The petitioners challenged the preferential treatment given to the State Trading Corporation in granting import permits for glass chatons, alleging a monopoly creation and discrimination.2. The validity of para 6(h) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, and Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, was questioned. The petitioners argued that para 6(h) violated fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g), and Article 31. The Court allowed the challenge against the validity of para 6(h) and Section 3, focusing on the canalization of imports through specialized agencies or channels.3. The Court deliberated on the reasonableness of canalization of imports through special agencies or channels, emphasizing its impact on the general public interest. It acknowledged the complexity of economic policies and the government's discretion in determining import policies. The Court held that canalization could be considered a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public unless proven otherwise.4. The petitioners alleged a denial of equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution due to the preferential treatment given to the State Trading Corporation in granting import licenses. However, the Court noted that the petitioners did not apply for licenses under the Export Promotion Scheme, negating the claim of discrimination. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners were not entitled to relief under Article 32 of the Constitution, and the petition was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 