HIRA TRADERS Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the prayer of the petitioners in these writ petitions is to quash the notifications and the consequential trade notices issued either by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) or the Joint Director of Foreign Trade, they are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by means of this common order.

(2.) The background facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions would run thus :

(3.) According to the petitioners, such an amendment in the foreign trade policy is the sole prerogative of the Central Government as is set out in Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the FTDR Act. The powers of the first respondent have been clearly demarcated and defined. According to the petitioners, when the respondents do not have powers, as the power only vests with the Central Government, the first respondent had revised para 1.05 of Foreign Trade Policy. The contention of the petitioners is that the trade notices did not indicate that they have been issued either with the concurrence or the approval of the Central Government (DGFT), which is the clear mandate of Section 6 of the FTDR Act. According to the petitioners, the DGFT does not have the power to issue the above referred notifications. It is stated that the Notification No.4, dated 25.04.2018 restricted the import of peas (pisum sativum) falling under EXIM Code 0713 1000 for a period of 3 months from 01.04.2018 to 30.06.2018. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Notification No.15, dated 02.07.2018 extending the effectiveness of Notification No.4 dated 25.04.2018 for a further period of three months until 30.09.2018.