Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iii). Whether the imposition of condition that persons, who wish to import insecticide for non-insecticidal purposes, must obtain an import permit from the Central Insecticide  Board and Registration Committee is unworkable.

iv). Whether there is any discrimination practised against the petitioners and similar importers of other insecticides.

2. These questions appear to arise in the following factual matrix. Boric acid is an insecticide which is included in the schedule to the Act. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.11388/2005, 1577/2006 and 4168/2007 is a trader who imports boric acid as part of its trade, whereas the other writ petitioner (in W.P.(C) No.28432/2006 and W.P. (C)10934/07) is a manufacturer who uses boric acid as raw material. The writ petitioners originally approached this court by filing W.P.(C) Nos. 11388/2005 and 1577/2006 and 26432/06. In the writ petitions the writ petitioners sought to challenge administrative instructions. By Ext.P1 they were asked to get themselves registered under the Act (Ext.P1 circular). Subsequently, the Central Board of Excise and Customs modified the terms of Ext.P1 Circular clarifying that import of boric acid for non-insecticidal use could be allowed only on the basis of an import permit issued by the Board and Registration Committee (Ext.P4 in W.P.26432/06). We  will deal with the circulars in greater detail as we progress further in the judgment. The last of the two writ petitions were filed by the very same 31-40parties who have filed the earlier writ petitions. The said writ petitions were apparently instituted when there was further development in the form of amendment to the notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act, by which while import of boric acid is free, in respect of non-insecticidal use, import permit is to be obtained from the Board and Registration Committee in the Ministry of Agriculture.

3. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions (four in number). The writ petitions have been allowed on two grounds. It was firstly found that subordinate legislation should not only be in conformity with the Constitution and parent legislation, but it also must conform to any other law made by the legislature. It was accordingly found that imposition of condition of registration under the Act, in respect of insecticides which were imported for non insecticide purposes, was contrary to the Act in view of Section 38 of the Act, which exempted insecticides which were imported meant to be used for non insecticidal  purposes. The next ground on which the writ petitions were allowed was that requiring the importers to get themselves registered under the Act was arbitrary and it was unworkable since the Act did not apply to insecticides imported for non insecticidal purposes. Registration was not contemplated in respect of such insecticides and it could also be refused by the authorities. Another learned Single Judge allowed one of the writ petitions (W.P.(C) No.11388/2005) following the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions.

430). He would contend that there are incidental powers available with the authorities. He would further contend that the condition imposed under Foreign Trade Act is not unworkable. He would point out that in policy matters interference by the Court must be limited to well established grounds. He would further submit that actually what the notification under the Foreign Trade Act insists is not registration but import permit and this aspect has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel relies on the following decisions in support of his arguments; Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India ( AIR 1984 (3) SCC 465) , Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain(1997 (1) SCC 373), CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003 (3) SCC 57), Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2013 (6) SCC 616), Subash Photogaraphics v. Union of India (1993 Supp. (3) SCC

9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners Sri.P.Gopinath Menon, on the other hand, supports the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He would point out that it is a clear case where there is parliamentary legislation in the form of Act. The notification, which was impugned, was clearly ultra vires the Act. The learned counsel would also submit that, as found by the learned Single Judge, procuring registration/permit is clearly unworkable in view of Section 38 of the Act as is clear with reference to cases where the permit was refused despite fulfillment of the requirements. He would also submit that when there are provisions in the Act, which enable the authorities to check illegal activities indulged in by persons who may have imported boric acid purporting to import it for non- insecticidal purposes but diverting it for being used as  insecticides, such provisions are more than sufficient to ensure that there is no abuse by any unscrupulous importer. He would further submit that even assuming that some restriction is required to check the possibility of abuse by any unscrupulous traders or importers, some documents can be obtained from the District Industries Centre which would suffice for the purpose of checking the possible misuse. Learned counsel would point out that there is no restriction on traders to freely import boric acid. He would then pose the question that when free import policy is in place, how permits could be contemplated having regard to the fact that the traders may not be in a position to produce end use certificate as sought to be demanded. He would contend that as the Act in this case governs the field and certain authorities are created under the Act for performing certain functions which are provided in the Act, the Executive could not confer additional functions on them by way of clothing them with authority as it were to issue import permit. In this regard he drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Paul Manoj Pandian v. P.Veldurai (2011 (5) SCC 214). Of course, he reiterated the  decision of the Apex Court in Kerala Samasthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala (2006 (4) SCC 327) for the proposition that, a rule is not only required to be made in conformity with the provisions of the Act under which it is made, but the same must be in conformity with the provisions of any other Act, as a subordinate legislation cannot be violative of any legislation made by parliament or the State legislature. He would further submit, with regard to the administrative orders which have been relied on by some of the domestic manufacturers, that no guidelines are present in the executive orders so as to guide them in the matter of allowing applications for import permit and declining the same. In this regard he would draw our attention to the decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Basant Nahata (JT 2005 (8) SC (171). He would reiterate further that it is a clear case where there is hostile discrimination of importers of boric acid. According to him, so far as it relates to boric acid alone, permit is said to be a must, whereas in respect of other insecticides, which are also imported for being used for non-insecticidal purposes, there is no such requirement. He would in fact point out  that the matter is beyond the pale of controversy that there is a strong and powerful lobby of domestic manufacturers, as is evident from the answer given under the Right to Information Act, as admittedly they sought for restriction to be placed on import of boric acid. He would also point out Circular dated 22/6/2011 which would indicate that the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which has the power to issue statutory directions under Section 151 of the Customs Act has itself understood, the law as meaning that insecticides imported for non insecticidal purposes go outside the purview of the Act and, therefore, registration/permit cannot be demanded of them. However, he would point out that the same document established the hostile discrimination which is practised against the writ petitioners/importers as it is stated therein that the restriction so far as it relates to boric acid importers will continue.