Import prohibition policy upheld where trade law allowed regulation and courts would not compel a wider port ban.

The Kerala HC upheld notifications restricting palm oil imports through Kerala ports, holding that the foreign trade law and import policy empowered the Central Government to regulate and prohibit imports, and that the amendments were supported by relevant material and policy considerations. The challenge based on arbitrariness, discrimination and lack of power failed because judicial review does not substitute the court's view for the policy-maker's unless the decision is capricious, irrational or perverse. The court also refused to direct extension of the ban to Chennai, Mangalore, Tuticorin and Beypore, holding that imposing a wider trade restriction was a matter of executive policy, not an enforceable judicial command.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notifications prohibiting import of palm oil through ports in Kerala were within the statutory power and were liable to be struck down as arbitrary or discriminatory. (ii) Whether the Central Government and the DGFT could be directed to extend a similar prohibition to the ports of Chennai, Mangalore, Tuticorin and Beypore.

Issue (i): Whether the notifications prohibiting import of palm oil through ports in Kerala were within the statutory power and were liable to be struck down as arbitrary or discriminatory.

Analysis: The governing provisions empowered the Central Government to regulate foreign trade and to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate import of goods, and the policy also permitted amendment from time to time. The impugned notifications were issued as amendments to the import policy and were supported by recommendations and materials placed before the authorities. The power to regulate imports included the power to prohibit them, and the decision was a policy measure taken on relevant material. The challenge based on absence of power, arbitrariness, unreasonable classification and discrimination failed, because judicial review does not substitute the Court's view for that of the policy-maker unless the decision is shown to be capricious, irrational or perverse.

Conclusion: The notifications were held to be valid and not liable to be struck down.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Government and the DGFT could be directed to extend a similar prohibition to the ports of Chennai, Mangalore, Tuticorin and Beypore.

Analysis: The request sought a judicial direction to alter an economic and trade policy by compelling the executive to impose a wider ban. The Court held that such a direction would amount to the Court framing policy, which lies outside the domain of judicial review. The existence of recommendations from the Coconut Development Board and public concerns raised by farmers did not create an enforceable legal duty to adopt the suggested policy. The matter remained within executive discretion.

Conclusion: No direction could be issued to impose the requested additional ban.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not sustainable and the impugned trade restrictions were upheld; the broader relief seeking extension of the ban to other ports was also declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and the applicable import policy expressly confer power to prohibit or regulate imports, a policy decision made on relevant material will not be interfered with in judicial review unless it is shown to be arbitrary, irrational or otherwise vitiated by constitutional infirmity.

---