Page 159 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] G.G. HERBALS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 341

11.3 It was submitted that the impugned notification has no rationale
as it is not clear as to what is the object sought to be achieved. It was contended
that the parent Act, viz. the DP&I Act, does not confer any right upon the re-
spondents to issue such a notification, since the entire preamble and purpose of
the Act, is to see that infections do not spread within the country on propagation
or planting of seeds, by such quality of plants or plant produce either local or
imported to the crops. It was submitted that when the provisions of the parent
Act have not been changed, the Foreign Trade Policy could not have been
changed by amending the definition of “animal feed”. It was submitted that ad-
mittedly, in case of the petitioner, cotton seeds are being imported as cotton
grains for consumption purpose and not for any sowing purpose, since they can-
not be used for sowing as they have failed all germination tests so far. The ex-
porting country has also certified that these “grain de cotton” for cattle feed con-
sumption is incapable of any sowing purpose since it does not have the required
strength and germination quality, which is very high in cotton. It was contended
that the impugned notification has been issued in colourable exercise of power as
the notification has been issued during the pendency of the earlier petition.
11.4 It was further submitted that the amendment of the definition of
“animal feed” is de hors the EXIM Policy and the Customs Tariff Act, which con-
tinues to allow the import of cotton grain and other products, as provided under
Chapter-XII therein. According to the Learned Advocate, the impugned notifica-
tion has been issued in colourable exercise of powers only at the whims of the
Ministry of Agriculture based on misconceptions and misapprehensions. It was
submitted that by adding the definitions of “grain” and “seeds” under the Plant
Quarantine Order and by not inserting another entry and by simply saying that
they include cotton in the form of “seed” only and not as “grain” is absolutely
illegal and is an unfair restriction on the import of cotton grain, which has been
going on for years now. It was submitted that at the most the respondents could
have changed the policy of export-import by seeking guidance from the Ministry
of Commerce, which suggests and prescribes the EXIM Policy.
11.5 The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
there are many other seeds in the form of whole grains in Schedules-V and VII
under the Plant Quarantine Order which are freely importable for consumption,
and hence, there is no reasonable basis as to why only in case of cotton grains, an
exception has been made, despite the fact that such cotton grain is not useful for
sowing at all. It was further submitted that the doubt of exotic pests or infections
by such cotton grains import is not justified since the very Plant Quarantine Or-
der prescribes the Phytosanitary Certificate under PQ Form-21 on page 31 of the
Plant Quarantine Order, which clearly states that the exporting country’s Gov-
ernment and Agriculture Department itself certifies it to be free from any such
pests or infections before loading. It was further submitted that on arrival, an
inspection is done at the entry Port by the Plant Quarantine Station itself, thus,
leaving no room for doubt of any pests or infections, since, otherwise, it can be
quarantined or deported. It was submitted that therefore, this argument is abso-
lutely baseless and without any justification since the Plant Quarantine Depart-
ment itself controls such pests, etc. on importation. It was submitted that the very
purpose of the Plant Quarantine Department is to check the imported goods and
it is only thereafter, that the Phytosanitary Certificate is issued.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  159