Case law

Madras High Court · 8 Jan 2026

M/S.G.G.Steels vs Union Of India

Court decision

The Court disposed of the writ petitions, upholding the impugned notifications/orders as valid notwithstanding failure to comply with the laying clause in Section 19(3) of the FTDR Act, which it held to be directory. It directed the Central Government to place the notifications before each House of Parliament at the earliest if they are still in vogue and have not been laid. Petitioners were given liberty to file objections within two weeks (to be considered after a hearing) or, where the challenge was to an adjudication order, to file appeals within two weeks, to be entertained without reference to limitation subject to conditions including any pre-deposit. No costs were awarded.

Facts

A batch of writ petitions was filed in the Madras High Court by importers — including steel importers such as M/s G.G. Steels and traders in spices and other goods — challenging DGFT notifications imposing a Minimum Import Price (MIP), including Notification No.38/2015-2020 dated 05.02.2016 covering 173 HS codes under Chapter 72 and later notifications (42, 50, 53, 21 of the 2015-2020 series, 57/2015-2020, 109/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 and 05/2023), issued under Section 3 of the FTDR Act, 1992 read with paragraphs 1.02 and 2.01 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020. Per Trade Notice No.17/2016 dated 10.02.2016, imports on or after 05.02.2016 below the specified USD unit value were restricted from entry into India. The petitioners sought writs of certiorari to quash these notifications as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Respondents included the Union of India (Ministry of Finance/CBIC), the DGFT, the DRI, and customs authorities at Chennai, Tuticorin and Visakhapatnam.

Key provisions