clr/1987/1987_3_15.pdf

(1)—The grounds upon which an Order may be made thereunder need not refer to theprotection of identical products, butofproducts of thesamecategory—ThusanOrder whichrefers to*cheese» for theprotection of'hallourni* is not ultra viresthe law Ο The sole issue in this appeal iswhether the Order made by the Minister of Commerce andIndustry byvirtue oftheprovisions of section2

(1)of Law 49/ 62 as amended by section2

(1)of Law 7/67,whereby cheese was one of the commoditiestheimportationofwhich was subjectedtotherequirement ofan import licence is ultravires the Law 10 Counsel for the appellants argued that it is ultra vires, because the Order was made for the protectionof «hallourni· and not of «cheese· whilst under thestatutoryprovision therestrictionimposedshouldhave beennecessitated for the protectionof identicalproducts •^ Held, dismissing the appeal, that «hallourni· isavanety of «chesse» andthe grounds upon which an Order under the said section may be made are wide enough and need not refer to the protection of identical.products.Imijaf. productsof the same category Appeal dismissed No Order astocosts 20 Appeal Appeal againstthe judqment of aJudge of theSupreme Court of Cyprus (Sawides,J ) given on the 11th July, 1986 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No 570/84)* whereby appellants recourse againstthe refusal oftherespondents togranttothem alicenceto 25 import intoCyprus 17 tons of Edam cheesewas dismissed *Reportedin

(1986)3CLR 1302 15 Sofoklldes A Co. v.Republic

(1987)P. Angelides, fortheappellants. St.Ioannidou(Mrs.),fortherespondents. Cur. adv. vult. A.LOIZOUJ.readthefollowingjudgmentoftheCourt.ThesoleissueinthisappealiswhethertheOrdermadebytheMinisterof 5 CommerceandIndustry(hereinafter tobereferredtoastheMinister),byvirtueof theprovisionsofSection 2subsection 1ofthe Imports(Regulation)Law1962(LawNo.49of1962)asamended bySection2ofLawNo.7of1967,isultravirestheLaw.Thesaid Section empowerstheMinisterbyOrderpublished intheofficial 10 GazetteoftheRepublictorestrictandregulatetheimportationof thegoodsspecified insuchOrderwheneveritbecomesnecessary in the public interest to restrict and regulate the importation of goodsfortheencouragementoflocalproductionandindustry,the improvement of the balance of trade, compliance with interna- 15 tional obligations or the development of the economy of the Republic. The Order under which the sub judice decision was taken waspublished in Supplement No.Ill,part Iof the official Gazette of the Republic dated the 20th January, 1983, under Notification No.7.Initsopeningparagraphtherearereproduced 20 inthesaidOrderallthegroundscontainedintheaforesaidSection uponwhichsueh-Ordercouldbemade.Underitem0.4.04,ofthe firstschedulethereof,cheeseisoneofthecommoditiestheimportation of which was subjected to the requirement of an import licence. 25 Learned counsel for the appellant hasargued to-day that the saidOrder,insofarasitreferstocheese,inwhichtheappellants weredirectlyinterested,isultraviresbecausetheitemreferred to inparagraph 10ofthenoticeofopposition filed onbehalf ofthe respondentsinrespect ofwhichtheprotection from competition 30 wasmadewas«hallourni»andnot«cheese». In ourjudgment «hallourni» is well known to be a varietyof cheesetraditionallypreparedinCyprus.Ortogiveawiderdescriptionofit,itisadairyproductinthecategoryofcheese.Heargued thattherestrictions imposed undertheaforesaid statutory provi- 35 sionsshouldhavebeennecessitatedfortheprotectionofidentical products. Wedonotsubscribetothisargument asinthefirst place«hallourni»isforallintentsandpurposes'avarietyofcheeseandinthe second place the grounds upon which an Order under the said 40 16 3 C.L.R. Sofoklldes &Co. v. Republic A. Lolzou J. Section may be made are wide enough and need not refer tothe protection of identical products but of products of the same category.TheOrdertherefore madebyvirtueofthesaidSection isnot inourjudgment ultravires. 5 Theappealistherefore dismissedbutinthecircumstances there willbe no order astocosts. Appeal dismissed with no order astocosts. 17