Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA versus T. R. MEHRA ETC. ETC. on 21 August 2019
[2019] 11 S.C.R. 278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
A
UNION OF INDIA
v.
T. R. MEHRA ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No. 2036-2038 of 2011)
BAUGUST 21, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR and DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992: s.20– Import of goods by Obron in August, 1997 – After coming intoCforce of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992,import of stated goods was no way prohibited under that Act – Actiontaken against the respondents founded on order dated 14.11.1986passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of powers conferredby Clause 8(1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1986 qua LD Textile– On appeal, held: The provision of the Act in no manner save theDquasi-judicial order – Moreso, when it had the effect of continuingprohibition regarding the import of goods otherwise made free andcould be imported under the 1992 Act – Any other interpretationwould result in validating the quasi judicial order issued in exerciseof powers derived from the Statutory Order which itself standsErepealed alongwith the repealed Act – In other words, the quasijudicial order dated 14.11.1986 is repugnant to the legislative intentbehind the 1992 Act, whereby, import in respect of the stated goodswas made free and an open regime – A fortiori, no action againstthe respondents in relation to import of stated goods after comingFinto force of the 1992 Act with effect from 17.08.1992, in referenceto the order dated 14.11.1986 could be resorted to in law – HighCourt dealt with this contention exhaustively and justly concludedthat the show cause notice issued against the respondents on thebasis of order passed by the Competent Authority dated 14.11.1986Gcannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny – No interference is required– For, a quasi judicial order passed in exercise of powers under theStatutory Order which stands repealed along with the repealed Act,is not saved especially when it will be per se repugnant to 1992 Actand defeat the spirit of opening of the import regime for the statedgoods.H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2036-2038 of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2007 of the High Courtof Bombay in Writ Petition No. 810, 812 and 814 of 2001
Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aruna Gupta and B. Krishna Prasd,Advs. for the Appellants.
V. Lakshmikumaran, Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumara, AadityaBhattacharya, Ms. Monica Kasturi, M. P. Devanath, Advs. for theRespondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The action taken against the respondents was founded on orderdated 14.11.1986 passed by the Competent Authority in exercise ofpowers conferred by Clause 8 (1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1986qua M/s. L.D. Textile Industries Ltd.
3. 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 ForeignTrade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred toas the ‘Act’), indisputably, import of stated goods is in no way prohibitedunder that Act.
4. If so, the appellants must demonstrate that the Act provides fora savings clause to save the quasi judicial order passed by the CompetentAuthority in exercise of powers bestowed in it in terms of Imports(Control) Order, 1986. The provisions of the Act as rightly noted by theHigh Court, in no manner save the quasi judicial order. Moreso, whenit had the effect of continuing prohibition regarding the import of goodsotherwise made free and could be imported under the 1992 Act. Anyother interpretation would result in validating the quasi judicial orderissued in exercise of powers derived from the Statutory Order whichitself stands repealed alongwith the repealed Act. In other words, thequasi judicial order dated 14.11.1986 is repugnant to the legislativeintent behind the 1992 Act, whereby, import in respect of the statedgoods has been made free and an open regime.
5. A fortiori, no action against the respondents in relation to importof stated goods after coming into force of the 1992 Act with effect from A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
A17.08.1992, in reference to the order dated 14.11.1986 could be resortedto in law. The High Court has dealt with this contention exhaustivelyand, in our opinion, justly concluded that the show cause notice issuedagainst the respondents on the basis of order passed by the CompetentAuthority dated 14.11.1986 cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny.
B6. Learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention toSection 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 TradeC(Development and Regulation) Ordinance, 1992 (Ord. 11 of1992) 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 anythingDduly 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 inrespect of any contravention under the Act so repealed;Eor (d) any proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right,privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, confiscation orpunishment as aforesaid, Fand any such proceeding or remedy may be instituted,continued or enforced, and any such penalty, confiscationor punishment may be imposed or made as if that Act had notbeen repealed.
(3) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Foreign TradeG(Development and Regulation) Ordinance, 1992 (Ord. 11 of1992), anything done or any action taken under the saidOrdinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken underthe corresponding provisions of this Act.”
7. However, the appellants are not in a position to point out as toHhow 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. Eventhe saving provision under the General Clauses Act will be of no avail tothe appellants for the reasons mentioned hitherto.
A
8. In view of the above, no interference is required. For, a quasijudicial order passed in exercise of powers under the Statutory Orderwhich stands repealed along with the repealed Act, is not saved especiallyBwhen it will be per se repugnant to 1992 Act and defeat the spirit ofopening of the import regime for the stated goods.
9. Hence, these appeals must fail and the same are dismissedaccordingly.
C
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Devika Gujral
Appeals dismissed.
D
E
F
G
H