IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 31397 of 2007(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. PARISONS FOODS (P) LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE-CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.K.MOHAMMED ALI. 2. N.K.HARIS, S/O.K.V.KUNHI PARI, RESIDING AT 18/547, NELLIKOTTE HOUSE, Z.C.H.N. ROAD, CALICUT-673 002. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.), SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, WELLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 009. *ADDL.R4. COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, COCHIN-11. W.P.(C). NO.31397/2007-K: *ADDL.R5. KERALA PRADESH KARSHAKA CONGRESS, INDIRA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. LAL VARGHESE, KALPAKAVADY. *ADDL. R6. KERALA KARSHAKA UNION, CONGRESS (M), STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT JOHN, PULICKAPARAMBIL. “ “ R7. ALL INDIA KISSAN SABHA, KERALA STATE COUNCIL, M.N. SMARAKAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SATYAN MOKERI, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. KELAPPAN NAIR. “ “ R8. KERALA KERA KARSHAKA SAHAKARANA FEDERATION LTD. NO 4370 (KERAFED) ARISTO JUNCTION, TVM- 14- REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. “ “ R9. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., AGRICULTURAL DEPT., SECRETARIATE, TVM. “ “ R10. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, TVM. *ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/11/2007 IN I.As 15259, 15274, 15269, 15037, 15306 & 15109/2007. **ADDL.R11. A.A. AZEEZ, S/O. K. ABOOBACKER KUNJU, SECRETARY, KERALA STATE EDIBLE OIL DEALERS ASSOCIATION, KALLELEEL BUNGALOW, PNMANA.P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. **ADDL.R12. ALL KERALA BREAD MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION, FIRST FLOOR, LULU APARTMENTS, THYCAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. P.K. SUHAIB. **ADDL.R11 & 12 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/11/07 IN I.A. 15391/07. W.P.(C). NO.31397/2007-K: ***ADDL.R13. KERALA KARSHAKA UNION (JOSEPH), CENTRAL OFFICE, NEAR STAR JN., KOTTAYM -39, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT JOSE CHEMBERRY. ****ADDL.R13. IS IMPLEDED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/11/2007 IN I.A. 15618/2007. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.S.G, R9 & R10 BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL, R4 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD, R5 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSEPH, R6 BY ADV.SRI.V.V.JOSHI, SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN, SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM, R7 BY ADV.SMT.P.A.ANITHA, SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN, R8 BY ADV.SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN, SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN, SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA, R11 & R12 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL, R13 BY ADV. SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NOS. 32705/2007, 35648/2007, & 218/2008,THE COURT ON 15/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31397/2007-K: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE STATISTICAL DATA OF COCONUT, SHOWING THE ALL INDIA STATE-WISE FINAL ESTIMATE OF AREA AND PRODUCTION OF COCONUT, OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 39 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 DTD. 16TH OCTOBER, 2007, ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DTD. 01/10/2007, IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9624/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE R.1. NO. 25 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 DTD. 29TH AUGUST 2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF AN ARTICLE IN THE INDIAN COCONUT JOURNAL OF JANUARY 2007 CO-AUTHORED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD. EXT.P.6: A COMPARATIVE STATEMENT, SHOWING THE QUANTITIES OF PALMOLEIN AND CRUDE PALM OIL IMPORTED THROUGH VARIOUS PORTS IN THE COUNTRY DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 2005 TO SEPEMBER 2006 AND NOVEMBER 2006 TO SEPEMBER 2007. EXT.P.7: A COMPARISON OF THE ACTUAL FIGURES SHOWING THE AVERAGE MONTHLY PRICE OF COCONUT OIL IN THE KOCHI MARKET DURING THE PERIOD FROM 2001-02 TO 2005-06 AND THE FIGURES SHOWING THE PORT-WISE IMPORT OF EDIBLE OIL DURING THE SAME PERIOD. EXT.P.8: A STATEMENT SHOWING THE ACTUAL PRICES OF COCONUT OIL AND PALM OIL IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET. EXT.P.9: STATEMENTS SHOWING THE DETAILS REGARDING THE IMPORT OF COCONUT EXPELLER CAKES DURING THE YEARS 2005,2006 AND 2007 (UPTO SEPTEMBER, 2007), OBTAINED FROM THE COCHIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF INDIA, COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, COCHIN AND THE STAE GOVT. OF KERALA. W.P.(C).NO.31397/2007-K: EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION SENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, NEW DELHI TO THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, KOCHI CLARIFYING THE EARLIER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE R.4. TO THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION OF THE R.1. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/09/2007 FORWARDED BY THE R.4. TO THE DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE CHART OF PRICE VARIANCE OF THE COCONUT OIL AND PALM OIL FROM JANUARY 2006 TO OCTOBER 2007. EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE COMPARISON STATEMENT. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2007. EXT.R8.A: COPY OF THE G.O. (M.S). NO. 126/07/AGRICULTURE DTD. 30/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.R8.B: COPY OF THE G.O. (MS).NO.205/07/AGRL. DTD. 24/11/2007. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).Nos.31397/2007-K, 32705/2007-R, 218/2008-A & 35648/2007-R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.By the notifications impugned in the first two among the captioned matters, import of different items or types of palm oil and palmolein and its fractions, hereinafter collectively called “palm oil”, came to be not permitted through Kochi Port. After those writ petitions were entertained, such restriction was extended to all ports in Kerala. That notification is under challenge in WP(C).218/2008. 2.Thereafter, WP(C).35648/2007 was filed espousing the cause of the agriculturists, particularly coconut farmers, seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government and the Director General of Foreign Trade, hereinafter referred to as the “DGFT”, to give WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 2 :- effect to the recommendations of the Coconut Development Board, hereinafter referred to as the “CDB”, for short, and impose ban on import of palm oil through Chennai, Mangalore, Tuticorin and Beypore ports, in addition to Kochi Port. 3.The State of Kerala, the Director of Agriculture, the CDB, different organizations of the farmers, All Kerala Bread Manufacturing Association and Kerala Karshaka Union (Joseph) were impleaded as additional respondents in WP(C).31397/2007. 4.The challenge to the impugned notifications is on the plea that there is no power to issue such notifications prohibiting the import of goods through any particular port and the imposition of the ban on import, initially in Kochi and later on, through all the ports in State of Kerala is without jurisdiction in terms of Sections 3 and 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as the “Act” and that they are irrational and hence arbitrary WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 3 :- and that they result in hostile discrimination owing to unintelligible differential treatment. It is argued by Advocate Sri.Jayasankar Nambiar, in support of the challenge to the impugned notifications that even assuming that they contain a policy decision, though this Court would not sit in judgment on the wisdom or soundness of the policy, as such, the impugned notifications do not withstand the test as to their legality and are arbitrary and unreasonable and hence liable to be struck down. It is further argued that the materials available with the Central Government and DGFT, while issuing the impugned notifications, do not reveal that the recommendation of the CDB was for prohibition of the import of palm oil through the southern States as a whole and the recommendation of the State Government was for reversing the earlier decision of the Central Government to reduce the import duty on palm oil and consequently to increase the rate of duty for that commodity. Figures relied on by the CDB and the State WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 4 :- Government are referred to, to suggest that there is no material to infer that the import of palm oil was causing decrease in the price of coconut oil within the State of Kerala. 5.The comparative prices and other matters are also pointed out in support of the contentions challenging the notifications. It is also pointly argued that the import of coconut oil and other coconut produce had been a matter of great concern for the CDB in controlling the price of coconut and coconut oil and the imposition of import on palm oil without any restriction on the import of coconut oil is unreasonable and illegal. It is further argued that the impugned notifications result in hostile discrimination and irrational and arbitrary classification between manufacturers and traders in palm oil on the one hand and the manufacturers and traders in other edible oils on the other and still further, also between manufacturers and traders in palm oil within the State of Kerala and those outside WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 5 :- it. On the basis that palm oil is not a commodity res extra commercium, it is argued that the manufacturers and traders have the fundamental right to trade or carry on business in that commodity, which right includes the right to import raw materials and the commodity itself through a port of their choice. It is argued that such right is ancillary to the enjoyment of the fundamental right to trade or to carry on business in that commodity. It is further argued that this is all the more so in a situation where the import of the commodity in question is permitted into the country under the Foreign Trade Policy. The impugned notifications are, thus, criticized as those resulting in arbitrarily picking out the commodity in which the business is carried on, for discriminatory treatment in the matter of import by the imposition of the impugned ban. Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution are also violated, it is contended. WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 6 :- 6.Though when the first among the captioned matters was filed there was a plea that the materials do not disclose any ground for picking Kochi Port alone to impose the ban, that question does not continue to be relevant after the second notification was issued imposing the restriction through all ports in the State of Kerala. 7.In support of the submissions on behalf of the petitioners, the decisions of the Calcutta High Court, the Madras High Court and the Rajasthan High Court in Kalindi Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India1, P.S.Tandon v. UOI & Anr.2 and Swastika Woollen Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India3 respectively were particularly relied on. The decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation4 was cited in support of the submission that though the courts will not ordinarily interfere with a decision, as regards a policy matter, it does not mean that the courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinize whether the policy in question is WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 7 :- formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and whether the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record. Sanjay Singh v. U.P.Public Service Commission5, State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co.6, Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India7 and Federation of Rly. Officers Assn. v. Union of India8, laying down that while there is no doubt about the principle that the courts will be slow to interfere with matters affecting policy requiring technical expertise and leave them for decision of experts, manifest arbitrariness and irrationality is an exception to that principle, were referred to. Aashirwad Films v. Union of India9 and Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation10 were cited as precedents regarding the test of reasonableness as would govern judicial review and constitutional validity of a legislation with reference to Article 19. WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 8 :- 8.The learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, making reference to the decisions of the Apex Court in M.P.Oil Extraction v. State of M.P.11, Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn.12, Principal, Madhav Institute of Technology & Science v. Rajendra Singh Yadav13, Union of India v. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava14 and Union of India v. Shah Goverdhan L.Kabra Teachers' College15, argued that the impugned notifications have been issued on proper application of mind and after adverting to and considering relevant materials and on the particular recommendation of the CDB and the State Government; the competence to frame a policy being with the State, the executive authority of the State has to frame it and unless it is absolutely capricious and arbitrary, it could not be interfered with in judicial review. It was also pointed out that the mere business interests of a person or persons cannot be the criteria for upholding the plea as to classification, including unreasonable WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 9 :- classification, particularly when there is no plea of malafides pleaded against it and that the courts cannot issue directions that would result in amendment of the existing Government policy and there is always a presumption in favour of administration that it exercises powers in good faith and for public benefit. 9.The learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Venganoor K. Chandrasekharan Nair relying on Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India16, argued that foreign trade policy is one where expertise in public and political, national and international economy is necessary before one may emerge in the making or in the criticism of an import policy and that courts may not possess the expertise and therefore, may be incompetent to pass judgment on the appropriateness or the adequacy of a particular import policy. He accordingly argued that the impugned notifications have been issued by the Central Government on the basis of materials, including the recommendations, of the WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 10 :- CDB and the State Government, which were made based on materials available with them. Deputy Assistant Iron and Steel Controller v. K.M.Corporation17 was referred to, to argue that none has an absolute vested right to an import licence in terms of the policy in force at the time of his application and the question of granting a particular import quota to an applicant etc. may depend upon various factors that would come for consideration. Fatehchand v. State of Maharashtra18 was cited, pointing out the different aspects that may have to weigh with the courts sitting in judicial review in matters affecting trade and commerce. Relying on Union of India v. International Trading Co.19, it was argued that a claim based on legitimate expectation and a challenge to a change in policy cannot be upheld unless the changed policy is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and perverse and not one in public interest. Om Prakash v. State of U.P.20 was also relied on, to sustain the contention that there could be WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 11 :- restrictions on trade for different reasons, which are discernible and sustainable under the Constitution. Union of India v. Asian Food Industries21 and M/s.Hindustan Granites v. Union of India22 were referred to, dilating on the scope of judicial review of actions taken under the Act. 10.Adv.Sri.P.V.Lohithakshan, supporting the impugned notifications, referring to the decision in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO23, contended that if the State acts withing the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate for it to take into consideration the national priorities and adopt trade policies and unless such action fails on the touchstone of reasonableness, the policy decision comes out unscathed. It was also pointed out that reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 12 :- imposed or upon any abstract consideration. 11.Advocate Sri.John Varghese, supporting the notifications, referred to Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports24, Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India25 and S.B.International Ltd. v. Asstt. Director General of F.T.26, to argue that an applicant has no absolute right, much less a fundamental right, to the grant of an import licence on the basis of an import trade policy. Reference was made to D.Navinchandra and Co. v. Union of India27 rendered relying on Daruka and Co. v. Union of India28, to state that policies of imports or exports are fashioned with reference to internal and international trade, as also on monetary policy and other relevant facts and if the Government decides an economic policy regarding import or export, the court would proceed on the assumption that the decision was in the interest of the general public unless the contrary is shown. Subhash Photographics v. Union of India29 WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 13 :- was cited to argue that the domestic industry is also to be protected and encouraged in certain situations and such a consideration can also weigh with the formulation of the policies. Kasinka Trading v. Union of India30 was cited for the proposition that once the notification is issued under a particular provision, the power was available with the authority to rescind or modify that notification. Hindustan Granites v. Union of India31 was cited to point out that the Foreign Trade Policy under the Act along with the Hand Book of Procedure constituted a composite scheme and the Hand Book of Procedure merely implements the policy and it does not prevent the Central Government from changing the policy. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India32 was relied on, to state that interplay of operational efficacy of the Act, the Rules and orders, on fundamental rights of the individuals to carry on trade or business guaranteed by Articles 19(1), 14 and 301 of the Constitution has to be appreciated having regard to the WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 14 :- concept of socio economic aspects and that there could be a class legislation based on geographical features. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal33 was cited to point out that it is well settled that public authorities must have liberty and freedom in framing policies and that it is well established that courts are ill-equipped to deal with such matters, though the discretion on the public authorities in framing the policy is not absolute, unqualified, unfettered or uncanalised and judiciary has control over all executive actions. He also referred to Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. M.P. Electricity Board34 and State of U.P. v. Hindustan Aluminium Corpn.35, on the scope of the expression “regulate” in different statutes. 12.Concluding the submissions on behalf of the State of Kerala, learned Special Government Pleader Sri.P.K.Babu referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 15 :- of NCT of Delhi36 and in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh(J) v. State of A.P.37, to the effect that 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 policy decision must be left to the Government and that it is not open to the courts to strike down a policy decision until and unless it is perverse and not merely on any ground referable to any factual disputes in the matter. Accordingly, it was argued that the impugned notifications cannot be found fault with. 13.Relying on the recommendations of the CDB and the request of the State of Kerala, Advocate Sri.George Mecheril argued that ban similar to that contained in Ext.P1 notification needs to be extended to other South Indian port as well. He states that the materials on record contain an overwhelming thrust in favour of a finding that there is an immediate requirement to impose such WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 16 :- ban and that the Central Government and the DGFT are liable to be directed to issue notifications banning import of palm oil through the other South Indian ports. 14.On the basis of the materials on record and the arguments advanced, the issues that arise for decision are as to whether the impugned notifications resulting in the ban of import of palm oil through the ports in Kerala are sustainable and whether the Central Government and the DGFT are liable to be directed to impose similar restriction in the ports of Chennai, Mangalore, Tuticorin and Beypore. 15.By the notification dated 16-10-2007, import was not permitted through the Kochi Port. In view of the issuance of the notification dated 24-12- 2007, whereby import of palm oil is not permitted through any port in Kerala, the challenge in WP (C).31397/2007 that the import is permissible even through Beypore in Kerala and therefore, the WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 17 :- restriction for import through the Kochi Port alone, in Kerala, is baseless, no more survives for consideration. 16.Sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Act provides that the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports and increasing exports. Sub-section 2 provides that the Central Government may also, by order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, in all cases or in specified classes of cases and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the Order, the import or export of goods. By virtue of sub-section 3, the issuance of an order under sub-section 2 would result in such goods falling within the net of the prohibition under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Under Section 5 of the Act, the Central Government may, from time to time, formulate and announce, by WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 18 :- notification in the Official Gazette, the export and import policy and may also, in the like manner, amend that policy. 17.Paragraph 2.1 in Chapter 2 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, hereinafter referred to as the “F.T.Policy”, provides that exports and imports shall be free, except in cases where they are regulated by the provisions of that Policy or any other law for the time being in force. The item wise export and import policy shall be as specified in the ITC(HS) published and notified by the DGFT, as amended from time to time. The impugned notifications are issued by the DGFT and Ex-officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India notifying the amendment to Schedule I (Imports) of the ITC(HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items, 2004-09. The powers conferred by Section 5 and Section 3 of the Act along with Paragraph 2.1 of the F.T.Policy are read in the impugned notifications to disclose the power being exercised. WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 19 :- 18.The Act, going by its Preamble, is one to provide for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports into, and augmenting exports from, India and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The preamble of the F.T.Policy discloses the context, objectives and strategy for the Policy. Paragraph 1.3 reiterates the availability, with the Central Government, the right to make any amendments to the Policy, in public interest, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Act. The thrust of the Act, as is discernible from Section 3, as also its preamble, is the facilitation of import and increasing exports. While the aim is to increase exports, the Act, as a whole, does not disclose any intention to increase and enhance import. The predominant economic policy underlying the F.T.Policy is to ensure that trade is a means to economic growth and national development by stimulation of greater economic activity. The F.T.Policy is rooted on such an WP(C)31397/07 & con.cases -: 20 :- objective and is built around two major objectives as discernible from the Policy Document. 19.The power to regulate import cannot but be conceded. The power to issue a notification or order includes the power