{"id":250017,"date":"2021-06-19T12:00:45","date_gmt":"2021-06-19T06:30:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=250017"},"modified":"2021-06-25T12:21:41","modified_gmt":"2021-06-25T06:51:41","slug":"cant-let-improper-imports-affect-indian-farmers-and-national-economy-prohibited-goods-liable-to-absolute-confiscation-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/19\/cant-let-improper-imports-affect-indian-farmers-and-national-economy-prohibited-goods-liable-to-absolute-confiscation-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Can’t let improper imports affect Indian farmers and national economy. “Prohibited goods” liable to absolute confiscation: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: In the case relating to\u00a0confiscation\u00a0of a large quantity of yellow peas\u00a0imported\u00a0from China, the 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari*<\/strong> and Krishna Murai, JJ has held that\u00a0the goods in question are to be held liable to absolute confiscation but with a relaxation of allowing reexport, on payment of the necessary redemption fine and subject to the importer discharging other statutory obligations.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Noticing that\u00a0the personal interests of the importers who made improper imports are pitted against the interests of national economy and more particularly, the interests of farmers, the Court said,<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhen personal business interests of importers clash with public interest, the former has to, obviously, give way to the latter.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Notifications at the core of the Controversy <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

In March, 2019, the Central Government, in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act) read with paragraphs 1.02 and 2.01 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, amended the import policy conditions relating to various items of Chapter 7 of the Indian Trade Classifications (Harmonized System) 2017, Schedule I by way of S.O. Nos. 1478(E), 1479(E), 1480(E) and 1481(E) dated 29.03.2019. These were followed by the trade notice dated 16.04.2019 by the DGFT.<\/p>\n

These notifications were earlier challenged were challenged for being in the nature of \u2018quantitative restrictions\u2019 under Section 9A of the FTDR Act, which could be only imposed by the Central Government after conducting such enquiry, as is deemed fit, and on being satisfied that the \u201cgoods are imported into India in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threatens to cause serious injury to domestic industry.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, the Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Agricas LLP,\u00a0<\/strong>2020 SCC OnLine SC 67, <\/strong><\/a>held them valid as they were issued in accordance with the power conferred in the Central Government in terms of sub-section (2) to Section 3 of the FTDR Act. It was also held that the powers of the Central Government by an order imposing restriction on imports under sub-section (2) to Section 3 is not entirely curtailed by Section 9A of the FTDR Act.<\/p>\n

Read our detailed report on the Agricus <\/em><\/strong>verdict here<\/p>\n

9A of FTDR Act does not negate Central Govt’s power to impose restrictions on imports under Section 3(2): SC<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n