UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus AGRICAS LLP AND OTHERS ETC.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus AGRICAS LLP AND OTHERS ETC.

The impugned notifications and DGFT trade notice were validly issued by the Central Government under Section 3(2) of the FTDR Act (DGFT acting in a ministerial capacity); Section 9A is an enabling safeguard provision corresponding to Article XIX of GATT-1994 but does not remove the Central Government's independent power under Section 3(2) to restrict imports; GATT-1994 Article XI was not directly incorporated into domestic law and thus could not be invoked to invalidate the measures; 'total quantity' in the notifications refers to the aggregate quota, not per-license entitlement.

Parties
Petitioner: Union of India and Others; Respondent: Agricas LLP and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Transfer Petition (civil) Nos. 496 509 of 2020 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Impugned notifications and the DGFT trade notice upheld; writ petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Quantitative Restrictions, GATT 1994 Articles XI and XIX, Delegated Legislation, Invocability of Treaties, Actual User Condition, Safeguard Measures
Foreign Trade (development and Regulation) Act, 1992 Customs Act, 1962 International Trade Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Quantitative Restrictions GATT 1994 Articles XI and XIX Delegated Legislation +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of India and Others

Petitioner

Agricas LLP and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Transfer Petition (civil) Nos. 496 509 of 2020 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of notifications and trade notice shifting peas/pulses from free to restricted category
  2. 2 Whether DGFT had authority to publish/implement the impugned notifications/trade notice
  3. 3 Whether the measures imposed were 'quantitative restrictions' requiring adherence to s.9A and the Safeguard Measures (Quantitative Restrictions) Rules, 2012 procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned notifications and DGFT trade notice were validly issued by the Central Government under Section 3(2) of the FTDR Act (DGFT acting in a ministerial capacity); Section 9A is an enabling safeguard provision corresponding to Article XIX of GATT-1994 but does not remove the Central Government's independent power under Section 3(2) to restrict imports; GATT-1994 Article XI was not directly incorporated into domestic law and thus could not be invoked to invalidate the measures; 'total quantity' in the notifications refers to the aggregate quota, not per-license entitlement.

Court Disposition

Impugned notifications and the DGFT trade notice upheld; writ petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Impugned notifications dated 29 March 2019 and Trade Notice dated 16 April 2019 are upheld
  • Writ petitions subject matter of these Transfer Petitions are dismissed (subject to matters not decided)