Page 169 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] G.G. HERBALS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 351

The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether
the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory pro-
visions or it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is op-
posed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is
that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear
to be agreeable to the Court, it cannot interfere.
6. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government
in decision-making, taking one course of action instead of another is
not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the
appropriate forum for such in investigation.
7. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone
can adapt which policy should be adopted after considering all the
points from different angles. In the matter of policy decisions or ex-
ercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement
of fundamental right is not shown, the Courts will have no occasion
to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own
judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In as-
sessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court
cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the
Government.
30. Mr. Panda also submitted that the above approach of this Court for
harmonious construction finds support from the following ratio laid down
by this Court in Bhatnagars & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 478 :
“6. ... In modern times, the export and import policy of any demo-
cratic State is bound to be flexible. The needs of the country, the po-
sition of foreign exchange, the need to protect national industries
and all other relevant considerations have to be examined by the
Central Government from time to time and rules in regard to export
and import suitably adjusted. It would, therefore, be idle to suggest
that there should be unfettered and unrestricted freedom of export
and import or that the policy of the Government in regard to export
and import should be fixed and not changed according to the re-
quirements of the country. ...
7. ... It was open to the Government, and indeed national interests
made it their duty, to intervene and regulate the distribution of the
commodity in a suitable manner.”
31. According to us, we need not deal with these submissions elaborately
as the aforesaid contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
need to be discarded on an altogether different reason. These arguments
ignore the crucial words appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 3, namely,
the provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, the import
or export of goods, etc. can be made “subject to such exceptions, if any, as
may be made by or under the Order”. These words are of wide amplitude
giving necessary powers to make such exceptions as the Central Govern-
ment deems fit while issuing the notifications or the order in prohibiting,
restricting or regulating import or export of goods, etc. In the process, it can
restrict the import of particular goods through particular ports or disallow
the import through specified ports (see Asian Food Industries, (2006) 13 SCC
542 judgment, already extracted above). Of course, such an action cannot be
arbitrary or irrational and should be backed by sound reasons.”
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  169