Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals by the Union of India against a High Court decision that quashed show cause notices issued to the respondents based on an order dated 14.11.1986 passed by the Competent Authority under Clause 8(1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1986. The respondents had imported goods through Obron Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. in August 1997, after the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 had come into force on 17.08.1992. The 1992 Act repealed the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the Imports (Control) Order, 1986, which was a statutory order under the repealed Act. The High Court held that the show cause notice based on the 1986 order could not be sustained because the 1992 Act liberalized imports and did not prohibit the import of the stated goods. The Supreme Court examined Section 20 of the 1992 Act, which contains a savings clause for things done under the repealed Act. However, the Court found that the quasi-judicial order of 1986 was not saved because it was repugnant to the 1992 Act's intent to open the import regime. The Court noted that the appellants could not demonstrate how the order fell within the savings clause. The Court also held that the General Clauses Act's saving provision was of no avail. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the show cause notice could not stand judicial scrutiny.
Headnote
A) Repeal and Savings - Quasi-Judicial Order - Section 20, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - The Court held that a quasi-judicial order passed under the Imports (Control) Order, 1986, which was derived from the repealed Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, is not saved by Section 20 of the 1992 Act, as the order is repugnant to the legislative intent of the 1992 Act which liberalized imports. (Paras 1-4) B) Import Control - Liberalized Regime - Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - The import of goods by Obron Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. in August 1997 was not prohibited under the 1992 Act, and the order dated 14.11.1986 could not be used to take action against the respondents after the 1992 Act came into force. (Paras 1-2) C) Savings Clause - General Clauses Act - The saving provision under the General Clauses Act was held to be of no avail to the appellants because the quasi-judicial order was per se repugnant to the 1992 Act and defeated the spirit of opening the import regime. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a quasi-judicial order passed under the Imports (Control) Order, 1986 (which stood repealed along with the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947) can be saved under Section 20 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and whether action based on such order can be taken after the 1992 Act came into force.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the quasi-judicial order dated 14.11.1986 is not saved under Section 20 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and the show cause notice based on it cannot stand. Pending applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Savings clause
- Repeal of statute
- Quasi-judicial order
- Repugnancy to new Act
- Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1992
- Imports (Control) Order
- 1986
