DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE Vs. MUSTAFA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed by the Director General of Foreign Trade and Union of India challenging a common judgment dated 2/11/2010 of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners were allowed on a limited ground. The challenge in the writ petitions was with reference to certain notifications issued by the Central Government. One such notification is Ext.P1 produced in WA No.480/2011. It is a notification dated 4/6/2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce by which betel nuts of different specifications were permitted to be imported provided the cif value is Rs.35 per Kilogram and above. Prior to the aforesaid notification, free import of betel nuts of different specifications was permitted. Certain other notifications were also challenged, which were dated 20/2/2007, 10/7/2007 and 29/8/2007. Those notifications relate to restriction imposed for importing betel nuts only from Mangalore Port.

(2.) Learned Single Judge did not go into the merits of the contentions urged, but allowed the writ petitions on a limited ground by forming an opinion that the Director General of Foreign Trade has no jurisdiction to issue a notification under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Director General, Foreign Trade has issued the notification on behalf of the Central Government, which is evident from the files produced before this Court. In fact, an interim order had been passed by this Court on 22/12/2011 recording the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the files pertaining to the notifications were available for production before this Court. Accordingly, by letter dated 21/5/2014, learned counsel for the appellants had produced three files before this Court. A perusal of the files clearly indicates that the Director General, Foreign Trade has issued the notification based on the decision taken by the Central Government and also in the capacity of Additional Secretary to the Government and therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

(3.) With reference to notifications dated 20/2/2007, 10/7/2007 and 29/8/2007, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that those notifications have already been superseded by the notification dated 4/6/2008, which has later on underwent further amendments as well. Hence, we do not think that there is any necessity to consider the validity of the notifications dated 20/2/2007, 10/7/2007 and 29/8/2007. What we are concerned is only with reference to the finding of the learned Single Judge with reference to notification dated