https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209679 The impugned export notification was challenged as discriminatory, ultra vires, and an unreasonable restraint on trade because it required meat and meat products to be sourced from APEDA-registered abattoirs or integrated abattoirs. The Court read the notification with the earlier export regime and the APEDA registration framework, and held that the requirement was clarificatory rather than a new burden. It was found to support the regulatory objective of ensuring quality, hygiene, and safety in exported meat, and to be directly connected with that purpose. The notification was therefore upheld as valid, non-discriminatory, and a reasonable restriction on business under Article 19(6). en-us Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209679 The impugned export notification was challenged as discriminatory, ultra vires, and an unreasonable restraint on trade because it required meat and meat products to be sourced from APEDA-registered abattoirs or integrated abattoirs. The Court read the notification with the earlier export regime and the APEDA registration framework, and held that the requirement was clarificatory rather than a new burden. It was found to support the regulatory objective of ensuring quality, hygiene, and safety in exported meat, and to be directly connected with that purpose. The notification was therefore upheld as valid, non-discriminatory, and a reasonable restriction on business under Article 19(6). Case-Laws Customs Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209679