Import fee enhancement on timber imports held arbitrary where equivalent fumigation and phytosanitary certification were recognised.

Levying a five-times enhanced fee on imported timber, despite phytosanitary certificates from the exporting country and recognition of equivalent fumigation under Clause 9(1)(ii), was held excessive and arbitrary. The Court found no prescribed Indian rule making a different fumigation chemical mandatory and no material showing that the certification issue had been resolved through the relevant international or bilateral process. The enhancement operated as a punitive burden for the exporting country's certification rather than any importer fault, and it unreasonably restricted the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g). The enhanced fee and corresponding office memorandums were quashed to that extent, while the underlying regulatory power was left intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the levy of five times the normal fee under Clause 14(2) of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003, and the corresponding Office Memorandums, was valid when timber was imported with phytosanitary certificates issued by the exporting country and equivalent fumigation treatment was already recognized under Clause 9(1)(ii).

Analysis: Clause 9(1)(ii) permits fumigation with Methyl Bromide or equivalent treatment duly approved and endorsed on the phytosanitary certificate. The petitioners were not importing timber without certification; they were subjected to re-fumigation in India and then charged the regular fee as well as a five-times enhanced fee. The record did not show any prescribed Indian rule or guideline identifying an alternative fumigation chemical as mandatory, nor was there material to show that the exporting country's certification had been resolved through the bilateral or corrective process contemplated by the relevant international phytosanitary standards. In these circumstances, the enhancement operated as a penalty for the act of the exporting country and not for any attributable breach by the importers. Such a burden, after granting relaxation for import, was held to be excessive and arbitrary and to unreasonably restrict the petitioners' right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g).

Conclusion: The five-times fee and the corresponding office memorandums were held invalid to that extent and quashed, while the underlying power of regulation was not struck down in entirety.

Final Conclusion: The impugned enhancement of charges for relaxed import of timber was set aside to the extent it imposed a punitive five-fold fee, and the writ petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated restriction on import trade that imposes a punitive fee despite permitting equivalent fumigation treatment, without a clear regulatory basis or resolution of the certification issue at the source country level, is arbitrary and violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of trade.

---