TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2015. 2. The petitioners are exporters of Shark fins. They challenge the notification on the ground that the notification issued is without any application of mind or without any basis. They also challenge it on the ground that the notification is issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, who is not the competent authority to issue such notification. 3. The Central Government under Section 5 of the Act has necessary power to formulate Foreign Trade Policy. It appears that complaints were raised from certain quarters against Shark finning. A meeting was held on 13/1/2015 under the Chairmanship of the Commerce Secretary. The meeting discussed about restriction on capture/export of all species of Sharks/Shark products. Various stake ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Central Government, notification has to be set aside. 5. The following judgments were relied on by the petitioners to substantiate their contentions: Union of India and others v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Another [(2001) 8 SCC 491], Federation of Railway Officers Association and others v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 289] and Union of India and another v. International Trading CO. And Another [(2003) 5 SCC 437]. 6. On the other hand the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submits that Shark fins, both in terms of quantity and value are very small and there is no much domestic consumption of Sharks. It is pointed out that fishermen are involved in gruesome practice of finning of Sharks, resulting in decline in nu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Government to formulate its Foreign Trade policies from time to time. The notification produced and challenged before this Court would clearly show that the notification is issued by the Central Government and not by the Director General of Foreign Trade. Therefore, what remains to be decided is whether the policy framed by the Central Government suffers from any infirmity with the decision making process. 10. It is well settled principle of law by umpteen decisions, that the Court must respect the executive wisdom to formulate a policy and the Court must understand the latitude of the executive wisdom to formulate such a policy. 11. In Liberty Oil Mill's case [(1984) 3 SCC 465], it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd.'s case [(2015) 9 SCC 657], It was held as follows: "Held, once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives--Court will not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions that are taken based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned-- When a policy decision is taken in the public interest, courts ought not to tinker with the same." 14. In the case in hand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dulge in fishing of Shark which are covered under the prohibited category. CS told that MPEDA/MoEF and D/o AHD&F may undertake this exercise of educating/spreading awareness among the fishermen and others involved in fishing/finning of Shark about the prohibited variety of Shark and the penal provisions so as to dissuade them from indulging in such illegal activities. CS also asked JDWL and FDC to take appropriate action for stopping finning of Shark in the high seas." 17. Thereafter, in the meeting held on 13.1.2015 [Ext.R2(e)], the Commerce Secretary summed up the discussion as follows: "7. After further discussions, the CS directed that in so far as Department of Commerce is concerned, the trade in shark fins (both export and imports....