https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90568 Canalisation of imports through selected agencies under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the public interest, and refusal of licences to others did not infringe Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g) or 31 because no acquisition of property or trade rights was shown. The corresponding enabling provision in the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, was therefore not invalid. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 also failed because the petitioners had not applied under the relevant Export Promotion Scheme, so no unequal treatment was established. The constitutional challenge to the import-control arrangement was rejected, and no relief under Article 32 was available. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90568 Canalisation of imports through selected agencies under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the public interest, and refusal of licences to others did not infringe Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g) or 31 because no acquisition of property or trade rights was shown. The corresponding enabling provision in the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, was therefore not invalid. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 also failed because the petitioners had not applied under the relevant Export Promotion Scheme, so no unequal treatment was established. The constitutional challenge to the import-control arrangement was rejected, and no relief under Article 32 was available. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 10 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90568