Page 161 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] G.G. HERBALS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 343

which determines the agricultural economy and, therefore, its import is allowed
through the Central Cotton Research Institute or on their recommendation under
certain restrictions. The guidelines for import of cotton seeds are stipulated in
Schedule-V of the Plant Quarantine Order. It was submitted that it is the respon-
sibility of the exporting country or the exporter to fulfill the requirements of the
importing country, as per the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC),
and hence, the importer has the legitimate right to ask the exporter to supply
kibbled/crushed and non-viable animal feed, as defined under the impugned
notification, instead of forcing the Government to allow import of cotton seeds as
animal feed.
12.4 It was submitted that the impugned notification providing for a
definition of “animal feed” is a policy decision taken by the Ministry of Agricul-
ture in the larger public interest and, therefore, this Court, in exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution, may not interfere with the wisdom of the
authorities in framing such policy decision. In support of such submission, the
Learned Senior Standing Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Su-
preme Court in State of T.N. and Another v. P. Krishnamurthy and Others, (2006) 4
SCC 517, wherein the Court held thus :
“15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a
subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show
that it is invalid. It is also well-recognized that a subordinate legislation can
be challenged under any of the following grounds :
(a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legis-
lation.
(b) Violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Con-
stitution of India.
(c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India.
(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or ex-
ceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.
(e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment.
(f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where
the Court might well say that the legislature never intended to
give authority to make such rules).
16. The Court considering the validity of a subordinate legislation, will
have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act, and also
the area over which power has been delegated under the Act and then de-
cide whether the subordinate legislation conforms to the parent statute.
Where a rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the
statute, then, of course, the task of the Court is simple and easy. But where
the contention is that the inconsistency or non-conformity of the rule is not
with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act, but with the
object and scheme of the parent Act, the Court should proceed with caution
before declaring invalidity.”
12.5 It was accordingly urged that the petition being devoid of any
merit or substance, deserves to be dismissed.
13. The facts as emerging from the memorandum of petition are that on
an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court as the goods being
Cotton De Grain/animal feed had already been imported. This Court, by a

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  161