Import bans need lawful competence and scientific basis; unsupported policy concerns cannot justify a complete restriction on commercial dog imports.

A complete restriction on import activity under the foreign trade regime requires lawful competence and a demonstrable scientific or empirical basis. The court accepted that the notification banning import of commercial dogs was issued within the statutory scheme and business allocation framework, so the competence and procedural challenge failed. It further held that a blanket ban could not rest on general disease or breed-protection concerns without contemporaneous scientific material, especially where quarantine, testing, and breeding regulation could address those issues. On that basis, the import ban was set aside and consequential directions were issued for a regulatory breeding policy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned notification banning import of commercial dogs was issued in accordance with the statutory scheme and the Government of India business allocation and transaction rules; (ii) Whether the ban on import of commercial dogs was justified on scientific and policy grounds.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned notification banning import of commercial dogs was issued in accordance with the statutory scheme and the Government of India business allocation and transaction rules.

Analysis: The statutory power to regulate imports under the foreign trade law vests in the Central Government, while the Director General of Foreign Trade acts to implement and authenticate that decision through notification. The record showed circulation of the proposal through the concerned departments and approval at the competent level, and the Court accepted the respondents' explanation on ministerial charge and file endorsement. The challenge based on lack of competence and procedural infirmity was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The notification was not invalidated on the ground of competence or procedural non-compliance, and this issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the ban on import of commercial dogs was justified on scientific and policy grounds.

Analysis: A restrictive policy affecting import could not be sustained merely on general apprehensions about disease or dilution of native breeds without supporting scientific material. The material produced did not disclose a contemporaneous scientific study or dependable empirical basis for imposing a complete ban, and the asserted background material was unavailable. The Court also noted that quarantine and testing measures could address health concerns, and that protection of native breeds required proper regulation of breeding rather than an outright embargo on commercial imports.

Conclusion: The impugned ban was held to be unjustified and was set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the import restriction succeeded on merits, while the procedural and competence objection failed; consequential directions were also issued for framing a regulatory breeding policy.

Ratio Decidendi: A complete restriction on import activity under the foreign trade regime must rest on lawful competence and a demonstrable scientific or empirical foundation, and cannot be sustained on unsupported policy assumptions alone.

---