Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The action taken against the respondents was founded on order
dated 14.11.1986 passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of
powers conferred by Clause 8 (1) of the Imports (Control) Order,
1986 qua M/s. L.D. Textile Industries Ltd.
It is not in dispute that the import of goods by Obron Impex
(Pvt.) Ltd. was in August, 1997. After coming into force of the
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act’), indisputably, import of stated goods is
SignatureinNot Verifiedno way prohibited under that Act. DEEPAK SINGH
If so, the appellants must demonstrate that the Act provides
for a savings clause to save the quasi judicial order passed by the
Competent Authority in exercise of powers bestowed in it in terms
of Imports (Control) Order, 1986. The provisions of the Act as
rightly noted by the High Court, in no manner save the quasi
judicial order. Moreso, when it had the effect of continuing
prohibition regarding the import of goods otherwise made free and
could be imported under the 1992 Act. Any other interpretation
would result in validating the quasi judicial order issued in
exercise of powers derived from the Statutory Order which itself
stands repealed alongwith the repealed Act. In other words, the
quasi judicial order dated 14.11.1986 is repugnant to the
legislative intent behind the 1992 Act, whereby, import in respect
of the stated goods has been made free and an open regime.
A fortiori, no action against the respondents in relation to
import of stated goods after coming into force of the 1992 Act with
effect from 17.08.1992, in reference to the order dated 14.11.1986
could be resorted to in law. The High Court has dealt with this
contention exhaustively and, in our opinion, justly concluded that
the show cause notice issued against the respondents on the basis
of order passed by the Competent Authority dated 14.11.1986 cannot
stand the test of judicial scrutiny.
Learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to
Section 20 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act,
1992. The same read thus:-
“20. Repeal and savings.—(1) The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of
1947) and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Ordinance, 1992
(Ord. 11 of 1992) are hereby repealed.
(2) The repeal of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947)
shall, however, not affect,—
(a) the previous operation of the Act so repealed or anything duly done or
suffered thereunder; or
(b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred
under the Act so repealed; or
(c) any penalty, confiscation or punishment incurred in respect of any
contravention under the Act so repealed; or
(d) any proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege,
obligation, liability, penalty, confiscation or punishment as aforesaid,
and any such proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced,
and any such penalty, confiscation or punishment may be imposed or made as if
that Act had not been repealed.
(3) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Foreign Trade (Development and
Regulation) Ordinance, 1992 (Ord. 11 of 1992), anything done or any action
taken under the said Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken
under the corresponding provisions of this Act.”
However, the appellants are not in a position to point out as
to how the subject order dated 14.11.1986 would be covered by the
savings clause under sub-sections (2) or (3) of the Section 20 of
the Act. Even the saving provision under the General Clauses Act
will be of no avail to the appellants for the reasons mentioned
hitherto.
In view of the above, no interference is required. For, a
quasi judicial order passed in exercise of powers under the
Statutory Order which stands repealed along with the repealed Act,
is not saved especially when it will be per se repugnant to 1992
Act and defeat the spirit of opening of the import regime for the
stated goods.
Hence, these appeals must fail and the same are dismissed
accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
New Delhi August 21, 2019
Civil Appeal No(s). 2036-2038/2011
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
T.R.MEHRA ETC. ETC. Respondent(s)
Date : 21-08-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv.
Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumara, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Bhattacharya, Adv.
Ms. Monica Kasturi, Adv.
Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
The Civil Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[Signed reportable order is placed on the file]