https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203631 The omission of the proviso inserted in Rule 3(2) of the Raw Meat (Chilled/Frozen) (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1992 was made under the rule-making power in Section 17 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963, and no material showed that it was done without application of mind or on a mere telephonic direction. After the earlier amendment had been stayed by another HC, the competent authority was entitled to withdraw the proviso if it was considered contrary to law, against public interest, or otherwise undesirable. As the original position, under which no export ban operated, was restored and that position was not challenged, writ interference was not warranted. en-us Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2011 10:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203631 The omission of the proviso inserted in Rule 3(2) of the Raw Meat (Chilled/Frozen) (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1992 was made under the rule-making power in Section 17 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963, and no material showed that it was done without application of mind or on a mere telephonic direction. After the earlier amendment had been stayed by another HC, the competent authority was entitled to withdraw the proviso if it was considered contrary to law, against public interest, or otherwise undesirable. As the original position, under which no export ban operated, was restored and that position was not challenged, writ interference was not warranted. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203631