Page 155 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] G.G. HERBALS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 337

2020 (373) E.L.T. 337 (Guj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Harsha Devani and Sangeeta K. Vishen, JJ.
G.G. HERBALS PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
R/Special Civil Application No. 1169 of 2019, decided on 26-12-2019
Animal feed - Definition in Entry No. 19 of Schedule-VII under Plant
Quarantine Order (Regulation of Import into India), 2003 - Vires of - Term “an-
imal feed” not defined in said order till its amendment in December, 2017
wherein scope of animal feed expanded for it to be in kibbled/broken/crushed
conditions - Amendment not brought about in public interest to protect bio-
diversity or on the basis of any Pest Risk Analysis being carried out or on any
finding with regard to the earlier imports having caused any threat to
bio­security but based merely on apprehensions voiced by Plant Quarantine
Officers about end-use of the said seeds - Schedule-VII ibid covers Animal
Feed, import of which is permissible on production of phytosanitary certificate
of exporting country or on inspection conducted by inspecting authority and
fumigation, thereby providing sufficient safeguards for import of animal feed
- Amendment, therefore, causes immense hardships to importers as exporting
countries do not export cotton grains in kibbled­crushed seeds/pellets/dried
cake form thereby placing unreasonable restrictions on the import of cotton
grains as animal feed which per se, are freely importable under Foreign Trade
Policy and Customs Act, 1962 - Impugned Notification dated 27-12-2017 to the
extent the same defines “Animal Feed” as “kibbled­crushed seeds/pellet/dried
cake form” is arbitrary and is quashed and set aside. [paras 28, 31, 33]
Writ Jurisdiction - Exercise of - Policy decision of Government - Once
sufficient material exists for bringing it within Article 14 of Constitution of
India, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness
of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether
there could be more appropriate or better alternatives - However, Writ Court
having adequate power of judicial review in policy matters if such action of
Central Government to restrict import of particular goods is arbitrary or irra-
tional and not backed by sound reasons - Article 226 of Constitution of India.
[para 30]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Logan Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 179 (Guj.)
— Relied on ................................................................................................................. [Paras 12, 13, 23, 33]
State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy — (2006) 4 SCC 517 — Referred ................................. [Para 12.4]
Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2015 (323) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on ................ [Para 29]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Hasit Dave, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Devang Vyas and Nirzar S. Desai, for the Re-
spondent.
[Judgment per : Harsha Devani, J. (Oral)]. - Rule. The Learned Senior

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  155