https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332408 The notification was treated as a valid exercise of Central Government power under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, because it expressly invoked that provision and amended the import schedule on behalf of the Central Government. The Director General of Foreign Trade signed it in an ex officio capacity as Additional Secretary, and the file records showed prior approval at the Central Government level. On that basis, the court found that the notification was not a personal exercise of jurisdiction by the Director General, and the Single Judge's finding that he lacked jurisdiction was set aside to that extent. en-us Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332408 The notification was treated as a valid exercise of Central Government power under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, because it expressly invoked that provision and amended the import schedule on behalf of the Central Government. The Director General of Foreign Trade signed it in an ex officio capacity as Additional Secretary, and the file records showed prior approval at the Central Government level. On that basis, the court found that the notification was not a personal exercise of jurisdiction by the Director General, and the Single Judge's finding that he lacked jurisdiction was set aside to that extent. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332408