Government policy decisions in foreign trade are immune from judicial interference unless proved arbitrary or without legal grounding.

JUDGMENT

The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the Port restrictions imposed by the Union Government as per the notifications dated 20.02.2007, 29.08.2007 and 10.07.2007, whereby the petitioners who are importers and traders of Betel Nuts were restricted to import Betel Nuts through Mangalore Port. In fact, all the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court as per the judgment dated 02.11.2010, on the ground that the Director General of Foreign Trade did not have power to issue any such notifications, whereas the power is vested only with the Central Government to issue notifications under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (in short, 'the Act, 1992') read with paragraph 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy - 2004-2009, amending Schedule-1 (Imports)of the Import Trade Control(HS)

Classifications of Export and Import Items, 2004-2009.

2. However, the said judgment was interfered with by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.480 of 2011 and other connected writ appeals. It was after verifying the files relating to the issuance of notifications, the Division Bench had come to the conclusion that in fact the notifications were issued by the Central Government and the Director General of Foreign Trade was only communicating the decision of the Central Government, and thereupon, remitted back the writ petitions for fresh consideration on merits of the matter.

3. Apart from the Port restrictions, some of the writ petitions are challenging the minimum import price fixed by the Government at Rs.35/- per kg. for the betel nuts on the ground that there is no public interest involved in such a policy enunciated by the Union Government. According to the petitioners, prior to the notification dated 04.06.2008, free import of betel nuts of different specifications was permitted. Since the writ petitions are materially connected, I propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment.

4. So far as Port restrictions are concerned, by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, the betel nuts were being imported by the petitioners through other Ports after executing bond in favour of the respondents. Later, the notifications with respect to the Port restrictions were withdrawn, and therefore, the said issue is not surviving in order to consider the writ petitions on its merits. Even so, learned counsel for the petitioners apprehends that since bonds were executed for the release of betel nuts imported, the likelihood of imposition of other penalties by the Government cannot be brushed aside.

5. However, in my considered view, since during the prevalence of the notifications in regard to Port restrictions, betel nuts were imported through various Ports on the basis of interim orders passed by this Court, and since the notifications were later withdrawn, I do not think it is proper on the part of the respondents to impose any penalty on the petitioners on that ground. Therefore, there will be a direction to regularize the imports carried out by the petitioners by securing interim orders from this Court on execution of bonds, and the petitioners are entitled to be discharged from the bonded obligations hereafter.

6. So far as the question with respect to minimum import price is concerned, according to the petitioners, there is no public interest involved and the Government have issued the notification in question to protect the interest of a Co-operative Society viz., CAMPCO, registered in the State of Karnataka and without conducting any study before imposing the minim import price. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the issue of public interest is not discernible from the notification issued, and therefore, the Central Government Counsel was directed to produce the original files relating to the notifications, for the perusal of learned counsel for the petitioners, and accordingly, the files were produced and learned counsel for the petitioners perused the