Case: Union of India (UOI) and Ors Vs. T.R. Mehra and Ors

2. The action taken against the Respondents was founded on order dated 14.11.1986 passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of powers conferred by Clause 8(1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1986 qua M/s. L.D. Textile Industries Ltd.

Court's reasoning:
3. It is not in dispute that the import of goods by Obron Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. was in August, 1997. After coming into force of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), indisputably, import of stated goods is in no way prohibited under that Act4. If so, the Appellants must demonstrate that the Act provides for a savings Clause to save the quasi judicial order passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of powers bestowed in it in terms of Imports (Control) Order, 1986. The provisions of the Act as rightly noted by the High Court, in no manner save the quasi judicial order. Moreso, when it had the effect of continuing prohibition regarding the import of goods otherwise made free and could be imported under the 1992 Act. Any other interpretation would result in validating the quasi judicial order issued in exercise of powers derived from the Statutory Order which itself stands repealed alongwith the repealed Act. In other words, the quasi judicial order dated 14.11.1986 is repugnant to the legislative intent behind the 1992 Act, whereby, import in respect of the stated goods has been made free and an open regime5. A fortiori, no action against the Respondents in relation to import of stated goods after coming into force of the 1992 Act with effect from 17.08.1992, in reference to the order dated 14.11.1986 could be resorted to in law. The High Court has dealt with this contention exhaustively and, in our opinion, justly concluded that the show cause notice issued against the Respondents on the basis of order passed by the Competent Authority dated 14.11.1986 cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny7. However, the Appellants are not in a position to point out as to how the subject order dated 14.11.1986 would be covered by the savings Clause Under Sub-sections (2) or (3) of the Section 20 of the Act. Even the saving provision under the General Clauses Act will be of no avail to the Appellants for the reasons mentioned hitherto8. In view of the above, no interference is required. For, a quasi judicial order passed in exercise of powers under the Statutory Order which stands repealed along with the repealed Act, is not saved especially when it will be per se repugnant to 1992 Act and defeat the spirit of opening of the import regime for the stated goods.