Import permit controls on boric acid upheld as a valid trade safeguard against misuse and diversion risk.

A policy-based import restriction on boric acid for non-insecticidal use was upheld as a valid exercise of foreign trade regulatory power and not as an ultra vires or arbitrary action under the Insecticides Act alone. The Court held that Section 38, which excludes non-insecticidal use from the Act, does not prevent the Government from requiring an import permit to verify that a toxic substance claimed for such use is not diverted. Allegations of factual mala fides were rejected because mere consideration of representations from local manufacturers did not prove bad faith or collateral purpose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the import restriction imposed on boric acid for non-insecticidal use was ultra vires, arbitrary or beyond the powers of the Central Government and the Ministry of Agriculture; (ii) Whether the notification was vitiated by factual mala fides because it was issued at the instance of local manufacturers.

Issue (i): Whether the import restriction imposed on boric acid for non-insecticidal use was ultra vires, arbitrary or beyond the powers of the Central Government and the Ministry of Agriculture.

Analysis: The restriction was upheld as a measure made under the foreign trade law, not as an exercise of power under the Insecticides Act alone. The statutory scheme permits the Central Government to regulate imports through policy, including restrictions or conditions, and the import policy could validly require an import permit from the Registration Committee for a toxic substance having possible misuse and diversion risks. Section 38 of the Insecticides Act excludes non-insecticidal use from the Act, but that exemption does not denude the Government of power to ensure that imports claimed to be for non-insecticidal use are in fact so used. The policy was therefore treated as a permissible regulatory safeguard in public interest.

Conclusion: The restriction was held to be within power and not arbitrary or ultra vires.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification was vitiated by factual mala fides because it was issued at the instance of local manufacturers.

Analysis: Mere receipt of representations from local manufacturers did not establish mala fides. The material showed that the Government could consider such representations while framing policy, and there was no additional evidence of bad faith or collateral purpose. The Court also noted that similar regulatory conditions had been applied to other insecticides and that disputed import data did not prove mala fides.

Conclusion: The allegation of mala fides was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The import condition requiring an import permit for boric acid used for non-insecticidal purposes was upheld, and the challenge to the notification failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A policy-based import restriction imposed under the foreign trade regulatory power will be sustained if it serves a legitimate public purpose, is supported by the statutory scheme, and is not shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or unconstitutional; the burden to displace the presumption of validity is on the challenger.

---