Import Regulation and Inspection Fees: pulses qualify as seeds, but fee levy failed for lack of statutory authority.

Pulses imported into India were treated as "seeds" under the Plants, Fruits and Seeds (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 1989 because the definition covered edible seeds of agricultural and horticultural crops. The Bombay HC also held that Section 3(1) of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 did not authorise the Central Government to levy inspection fees, as a power to regulate import does not by implication include a power to impose fees or taxes without express authority and adequate guiding standards; Clauses 3(12) and 12 of the 1989 Order were therefore ultra vires.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pulses imported into India fell within the definition of "seeds" under the Plants, Fruits and Seeds (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 1989. (ii) Whether Section 3(1) of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 authorised the Central Government to levy inspection fees and whether Clauses 3(12) and 12 of the 1989 Order, to that extent, were ultra vires.

Issue (i): Whether pulses imported into India fell within the definition of "seeds" under the Plants, Fruits and Seeds (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 1989.

Analysis: The definition of "seeds" in Clause 2(1) was read broadly to cover seeds of agricultural and horticultural crops. Pulses are edible seeds of leguminous plants cultivated for food and therefore answer that description. The challenge that pulses were merely grains and not seeds was rejected.

Conclusion: The imported pulses were held to fall within the definition of "seeds" under the Order.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 3(1) of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 authorised the Central Government to levy inspection fees and whether Clauses 3(12) and 12 of the 1989 Order, to that extent, were ultra vires.

Analysis: Section 3(1) empowered the Central Government only to prohibit or regulate import of articles likely to cause infection, and contained no express power to impose a fee or tax. The Court applied the settled principle that a power to regulate does not by implication include the power to levy fees or taxes, and that such imposts require clear legal authority. The absence of guiding standards for any delegated power to levy such charges also militated against reading such authority into the provision. The levy therefore exceeded the delegated power under the parent Act.

Conclusion: Section 3(1) did not authorise levy of inspection fees, and Clauses 3(12) and 12 of the 1989 Order were struck down as ultra vires.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the impugned inspection-fee levy was invalidated, and the respondents were restrained from collecting such fees and directed to grant consequential reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated power to regulate or prohibit import does not by implication include the power to levy a fee or tax unless the parent statute expressly authorises such impost and supplies adequate guiding standards.

---