Page 170 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

352 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

30. Thus, the Court has held that the writ Court has adequate power of
judicial review in policy matters, however, once it is found that there is sufficient
material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four cor-
ners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not extend
to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exer-
cise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alterna-
tives. The Court, however, has held that it is permissible for the Central Gov-
ernment to restrict import of particular goods, but such action cannot be arbi-
trary or irrational and should be backed by sound reasons.
31. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, no study has been
conducted nor is there any reasonable ground for placing restrictions on the im-
port of animal feed. The entire decision to amend the definition of animal feed in
the Plant Quarantine Order is based merely on apprehensions voiced by Plant
Quarantine Officers and is not based on any substantial material, study or past
experience. As noticed earlier, the provisions of the Plant Quarantine Order pro-
vide for sufficient safeguards for the import of animal feed under Schedule-VII
thereof. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, merely by dint of the fact that the
Plant Quarantine Officers have some apprehensions or with a view to overcome
such situation, the amendment in Entry No. 19 of Schedule-VII, which causes
immense hardships to the importers and has brought such imports to a virtual
standstill as the exporting countries do not export cotton grains in kibbled-
crushed seeds/pellets/dried cake form, is not warranted, inasmuch as it places
unreasonable restrictions on the import of cotton grains as animal feed despite
the fact that import of such goods is unrestricted under the Foreign Trade Policy
and the Customs Act.
32. As noticed earlier, in the present case, it is evident that the reason
behind the introduction of a larger definition of “animal feed” in Entry No. 19 of
Schedule-VII is merely with a view to overcome a situation, as reflected in the
Draft Notification, and is not backed by any research or study which establishes
that the import of cotton grains as animal feed has caused any kind of threat to
the plants/plant species, as reflected in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of
the respondents. Thus, the decision to restrict the import of animal feed to kib-
bled/crushed seeds/pellets/dried cake form, which restricts the import of cotton
grain as animal feed, is arbitrary or irrational and is not backed by any sound
reason and renders such decision unsustainable.
33. In the light of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and is, ac-
cordingly, allowed. The impugned Notification dated 27-12-2017 to the extent the
same defines “Animal Feed” as “kibbled-crushed seeds/pellet/dried cake form”
is quashed and set aside. However, with a view to safeguard public interest, in
case where cotton grains are imported by way of animal feed and the Plant
Quarantine officers have any doubt about the nature of the consignment, it is
always permissible for them to ensure that a germination test as well as a Phyto-
sanitary test of the consignment is carried out, at the cost of the importer, to es-
tablish the risk element before clearing the goods for consumption. It is also
permissible for the respondents to impose conditions akin to the conditions im-
posed by this Court in Logan Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) at the time
of clearance of such goods. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no
order as to costs.
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  170