- (1.) All the appeals are directed against a common judgment and order. Therefore, all the appeals are taken up for hearing together.
(2.) The two grounds on the basis of which the writ petition was allowed by the learned Trial Court are as follows : "(a) the impugned notification cannot be sustained as the prohibition can also be made by way of an Order published in the Official Gazette and not in the manner as has been done in the instant case. (b) It is relevant to quote the source of power of restriction of the DGFT under paragraph 2.6 of the Foreign Trade Policy, which reads thus : "2.6. DGFT may, through a notification, adopt and enforce any measure necessary for :- (i) Protection of public moral. (ii) Protection of human, animal or plant life or health. (iii) Protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights and the prevention of deceptive practices. (iv) Prevention of use of prison labour. (v) Protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value. (vi) Conservation of exhaustible natural resources. (vii) Protection of trade of fissionable material or material from which they are derived; and (viii) Prevention of traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war." The aforesaid parameters set forth therein does not satisfy the imposition of conditions by way of revision of rate from Rs. 75/- to 110/- per kg. and above. Therefore, the DGFT even as a delegatee is not empowered to put a condition by revising the rate as a condition to import."
(3.) The subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition was the notification dated 13th May, 2013, a copy whereof is at Page 104 of the paper book appearing to have been issued by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.;