GOKALDAS IMAGES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are garment exporters and seek to raise common questions of law. The petitioners are impugning the authority of respondent Apparel Export Promotion Council (for short, 'AEPC') to levy penalty for non-utilisation of the quota allotted to respective petitioners. The petitioners also seek to challenge the basis for calculation of the extent of utilization of the export entitlement.

(2.) The Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') came into force on 19.6.1992. The object was to provide for development and regulation of foreign trade and inter alia augmenting exports. Section 5 of the said Act provides for the Central Government to formulate and announce the Export and Import Policy from time to time and to amend that Policy. Section 11 stipulates that no exports can be made except in accordance with provisions of the said Act, Rules and Orders made thereunder as also the Export and Import Policy for the time being in force. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 imposes a liability of penalty not exceeding Rs. 1,000/- or five times the value of goods in case of violation of provisions of the said Act, Rules or Orders and the amount determined can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The penalty imposed or confiscation made under the said Act is not to prevent the imposition of any other punishment arising under any other law for the time being in force (Section 12). Section 13 provides for the adjudicating authority for purposes of determination of penalty or confiscation of goods. A person aggrieved by the decision made by the adjudicating authority is entitled to prefer an appeal before the competent authority in terms of Section 15 of the said Act.

(3.) The petitioner's contention, thus, is that the said Act itself provides for the complete mechanism for violation of provisions of the said Act, Rules, Orders, etc. and, thus, while formulating the Export and Import Policy, it cannot be said that Section 5 can authorize such mechanism separately under the Policy.