UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus AGRICAS LLP AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2020] 14 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 26-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
AGRICAS LLP AND OTHERS ETC.
(Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 496-509 of 2020)
AUGUST 26, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 –
ss.3(2), 9A – Statutory Scheme of – Notifications, trade notices were
issued amending the import policy for peas, pulses shifting them
from free to restricted category requiring prior authorization for
import – Validity of – Held: There is no violation of s.3 in the issuance
of the impugned notifications or orders, which are intra vires and
not ultra vires – Further, implementation of GATT-1994, including
Article XI, is left to the Central Government by means of delegated
legislation – FTDR Act does not legislate and transform Article XI
of the GATT-1994 – Notwithstanding s.9A, the Central Government
continues and has authority to impose quantitative restrictions by
an order u/s.3(2) – Impugned notifications are valid as they are
issued in accordance with the power conferred in the Central
Government in terms of sub-section (2) to s.3 – International
Convention/Treaties – General Agreement on Tariff and Trade
(GATT), 1947; General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), 1994
– Articles XI and XIX – Constitution of India – Arts. 73, 77, 253,
Part XI- Chapter I – Government of India (Transaction of Business)
Rules, 1961 – Customs Act, 1962 – s.11 – Safeguard Measures
(Quantitative Restrictions) Rules, 2012 – Foreign Trade (Regulation)
Rules, 1993 – Doctrines/Principles – Principle of invocability or
justiciability; Act of transformation.
International Convention/Treaties – International treaty –
General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, 1994 (GATT-1994) – Effect
of on domestic law; Obligations of contracting party – Discussed.
International Convention/Treaties – International customary/
treaty law Applicability in domestic law – Theories – Dualism and
Monism – Discussed.
[2020] 14 S.C.R. 372
372
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
373
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 –
ss.3(4), 18A – Held: provisions of FTDR Act are in addition to, and
not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time
being in force – This would be the correct way to harmoniously
read and interpret sub-section(4) to s.3 and s.18A.
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 –
ss.3, 9A – Interpretation of – Discussed.
Maxims – Lex specialis derogat legi generali – When not
applicable – Discussed.
Words & Expressions – ‘direct application’ – Meaning of –
Held: It means and mandates that the treaty norms, either wholly or
to some extent, are directly treated as norms of domestic law and
enjoy the statutory law status by default in the domestic legal system
– International Convention/Treaties.
Disposing of the transfer petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Discussion on challenge to the role and authority
of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to issue the
Notifications and Trade Notice and interpretation of the words
“total quantity”
The importers have rightly not raised the contention that
the DGFT could not have notified the impugned notifications.
The notifications themselves record that they were published by
the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of
Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade. The first
paragraph of the notification states that they had been issued by
the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under
Article 77 of the Constitution. Clearly, the notifications were
issued by the Central Government, and not the DGFT that had
performed the ministerial act of publication. The decision to
amend and issue the notification was of the Central Government.
Neither Section 3(2) nor Section 6(3) of the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR) Act was violated.
Article 77 does not provide for delegation of any power, albeit
under sub-section (3) of Article 77, the President is to make Rules
for more convenient transaction of business and allocation of same
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. AGRICAS LLP
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
amongst Ministers. Under the Government of India (Transaction
of Business) Rules, 1961, the government business is divided
amongst Ministers and specific functions are allocated to different
Ministries. The Director General of Foreign Trade is an ex officio
Additional Secretary in the Government of India and is appointed
by the Central G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.