DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged notification no. 09/2015-20 dated June 3, 2016 issued by Director General of Foreign Trade.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, Director General of Foreign Trade has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notification. By the impugned notification, a foreign trade policy is sought to be altered. Assuming that foreign trade policy can be altered, it has to be done by the Central Government. The Director General of Foreign Trade cannot be said to be the Central Government. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and has submitted that Section 6(3) of the Act of 1992 does not permit a Director General of Foreign Trade to issue any notification in exercise of powers under Section 3 or 5 of the Act of 1992. The impugned notification states that, the same has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act of 1992. He has referred to Section 19(3) of the Act of 1992 and has submitted that, the impugned notification has not been laid before the Parliament in terms of Section 19(3) of the Act of 1992 till date. At least, nothing has been placed on record to suggest otherwise. Therefore, even on that score, the impugned notification is non est in the eye of law.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is engaged in the business of publication of newspaper. Such business requires newsprint. Newsprint is imported. The petitioner does not require large quantity of news-prints for the quantum of business of the petitioner. The petitioner places orders on import houses for news-prints. Other newspaper publications not having large volume of business also places orders for news-prints on import houses, who makes the requisite supplies. The import houses imports the news-prints on behalf of such individual newspaper businesses. The impugned notification affects the right of the petitioner to carry on business of publication of newspaper. The impugned notification requires small business persons to comply with such requisitions which are onerous. By the impugned notification, the petitioner has to satisfy the customs authorities about the import requirements at the time of import of the newsprint. Compliance with such requirement will mean that, the petitioner will have to import the newsprint in its own name. In doing so, the petitioner will be required to import large quantities of news-prints. Import of newsprint at such volume is not economically feasible for the petitioner. Money and space will get tied down in such process. It is not financially feasible for a small business house as that of the petitioner to do so.;