2023 (10) TMI 183 - HC - Customs

Scope of notification dated 09th July, 2020 - prohibition on importation of a variety of cut flowers into India through all airports, save for the Chennai airport - Petitioner contends that this regulatory measure discriminates against Delhi s flower traders by putting them in an unfavourable position relative to their Chennai-based counterparts - infringement of Petitioner s rights under the Constitution of India. Whether the Union Government, represented by its respective departments, is justified in allowing the importation of cut flowers exclusively through Chennai Airport? HELD THAT - Considering the Respondents ongoing initiatives for phased enhancements to laboratory facilities and equipment across several ports, including Delhi, it is clear that the core concern of the Petitioner-the challenges faced in importing cut flowers via Delhi-has not only been recognized but is also presently being addressed by the appropriate authorities. Therefore, judicial intervention at this stage is not warranted. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the impugned notification and order under Articles 14 and 19.
2. Justification for restricting the import of cut flowers to Chennai airport.
3. Alleged discrimination against Delhi flower traders.
4. Bio-security concerns and the necessity for specialized quarantine facilities.
5. Procedural fairness and adequacy of the DGFT's decision-making process.

Summary:

Constitutionality under Articles 14 and 19:
The petitioner contended that the impugned notification and subsequent order violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, arguing that these actions discriminate against flower traders in Delhi while favoring those in Chennai. The court examined whether the restriction on importing cut flowers exclusively through Chennai airport was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Justification for Restriction:
The respondents argued that the restriction was necessary to protect bio-security and manage the increased volume of agricultural imports and exports. The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and the Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare (DAC&FW) emphasized that the specialized facilities and trained manpower at Chennai airport were essential for effective phytosanitary inspections and preventing the entry of exotic pests.

Alleged Discrimination:
The petitioner argued that the restriction was impractical and detrimental to Delhi flower traders, citing logistical challenges, increased costs, and potential loss of freshness and quality of the flowers. The court considered whether the restriction imposed an unreasonable constraint on the commercial activities of Delhi's flower traders.

Bio-security Concerns:
The respondents highlighted the bio-security risks associated with importing cut flowers, including the potential introduction of harmful exotic pests. They argued that centralized inspection at Chennai airport, equipped with advanced laboratory facilities and trained personnel, was crucial for maintaining national bio-security.

Procedural Fairness:
The petitioner claimed that the DGFT's decision-making process lacked transparency and reasonable justification. The court reviewed the procedural steps taken by the DGFT, including the consultation with DAC&FW and the personal hearing afforded to the petitioner.

Findings:
The court found that the impugned notification and order were not arbitrary or discriminatory. The restriction aimed to fortify national bio-security and efficiently utilize available resources. The court acknowledged the specialized expertise and facilities at Chennai airport and the need for heightened vigilance in the face of increasing global agricultural trade.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the restriction on importing cut flowers through Chennai airport was justified and did not violate Articles 14 and 19. The court noted the respondents' commitment to scaling up technical and laboratory capabilities at multiple ports, including Delhi, and urged the government to expedite these enhancements. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, with the court refraining from judicial intervention at this stage.

← Previous Next →