ORDER : Ms. Jaishree Thakur, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “(1) The impugned decision dated 18.9.2014 taken by the Board of Approval in its Third Meeting (Annexure 11) may be modified as permitted under para 6.8(d) & (e) of the Foreign Trade Policy. (2) The decision dated 23.11.2012(Annexure 3) taken by the Board of Approval in its meeting, being applied to the Petitioner may be modified as permitted under para 6.8(d) & (e) of the Foreign Trade Policy. (3) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed.” 2. The petitioner-Company was established for the purpose of setting up an industrial unit for manufacture of marble slabs, tiles and dressed marble blocks at Udaipur. Being an indigenous unit, it decided to switch over as an Export Oriented Unit(for short 'EOU') to derive benefits of the policies of Government of India, therefore, it applied for obtaining letter of permission and the same was granted to it. 3. In a bid to regulate foreign trade and promotion of exports, the Parliament enacted the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (for short 'the Act of 1992'). In exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act of 1992, the Government of India has been framing the export and import policies from time to time to encourage entrepreneurs to boost their exports to enable the Government of India to earn foreign exchange. The Foreign Trade Policy, 2009 contains general provisions regarding imports and exports while providing for incentives or benefits. Chapter 6 deals with policy regarding Export Oriented Units (EOU for short). Para 6.8 of the policy provides for norms of sale of finished goods/ rejects/ wastes / scrap / remnants and by-products in domestic tariff area. Paras 6.8(d) and (e) of the policy are reproduced hereunder:- “6.8(d)-”Unless specifically prohibited in LOP, rejects within an overall limit of 50% may be sold in DTA, on payment of duties as applicable to sale under sub-para 6.8(a) on prior intimation to Customs authorities. Such sale of rejects upto 5% of FOB value of exports shall not be subject to achievement of NFE. Such sale of rejects upto 5% of FOB value of exports shall not be subject to achievement of NFE. 6.8(e) Scrap/waste/remnants arising out of production process or in connection therewith may be sold in DTA, as per SION notified under Duty Exemption Scheme, on payment of concessional duties as applicable, within overall ceiling of 50% of FOB value of exports. Such sales of scrap/waste/ remnants shall not be subject to achievement of positive NFE. In respect of items not covered by norms, DC may fix ad hoc norms for a period of six months and within this period, norms should be fixed by Norms Committee. Ad hoc norms will continue till such time norms are fixed by Norms Committee. Sale of waste/scrap/ remnants by units not entitled to DTA sale, or sales beyond DTA sale entitlement shall be on payment of full duties. Scraps/waste/remnants may also be exported.” 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the Development Commissioner had initially fixed ad hoc norms for wastage in production from Imported Blocks to the extent of 8.92% and wastage to the extent of 27.56% from indigenous blocks. A contention is also raised that the petitioner further requested to grant approval to dispose of rejects/remnants/export surplus to the extent of 7.5%. Another representation was sent seeking permission to dispose of rejects/remnants since the petitioner was facing acute shortage of space and financial constraints. The respondent thereafter informed the petitioner that a decision had been taken by the Board of Approval for Export Oriented Units for giving permission for disposal of rejects/waste upto 2% of input quality. Another detailed representation was moved against grant of only permission for disposal of only 2% input quality and the same came to be rejected on 18.9.2014 and was communicated to the petitioner on 23.9.2014. Aggrieved against this action of the respondents and came to file the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Another detailed representation was moved against grant of only permission for disposal of only 2% input quality and the same came to be rejected on 18.9.2014 and was communicated to the petitioner on 23.9.2014. Aggrieved against this action of the respondents and came to file the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the action of the respondents in granting permission for disposal of rejects/waste only to the extent of 2% violates of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as it places a restriction upon the trade of the petitioner as well as against the Foreign Trade Policy para 6.8 (d) & (e) under which the authorities had initially permitted disposal of wastage of 8.92% of inputs of imported block and 27.56% of inputs in case of indigenous. As per clause 6.8(d) an EOU is permitted to sell rejects within an overall limit of 50% in the domestic market on payment of duties as applicable to a sale under sub-para 6.8(1) on prior intimation to the custom authorities. In 6.8(e) an EOU is permitted to sell scraps/waste/remnants arising out of production process or in connection thereof in the domestic market on payment of concessional duties within over all ceiling of 50% of value of exports, with a further stipulation that sale of waste/scraps/remnants by EOU shall be on payment of full duty. It is contended that the respondents have illegally and without jurisdiction issued the impugned order by fixing a norm of 2% as maximum permissible limit of sale of rejects/scraps/waste/ remnants in a domestic market. 6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents Mr. Vishal Thakur has argued that the Board of Approval had rightly permitted disposal of such rejects / waste/scraps/remnants in terms of para 6.8(d) and (e) of the policy upto 2% of the input quantity and this has been done in order to promote the indigenous industry as well. 6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents Mr. Vishal Thakur has argued that the Board of Approval had rightly permitted disposal of such rejects / waste/scraps/remnants in terms of para 6.8(d) and (e) of the policy upto 2% of the input quantity and this has been done in order to promote the indigenous industry as well. The counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment reported as M/s Hindustan Granites v. Union of India & ors., AIR 2007 SC(supp) 299 to contend that the policy regarding DTA sales was an exception and not an integral part of the policy, therefore, no right accrued to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Board by which the petitioners had been granted permission for disposal of rejects/waste upto 2% of input quantity (in absence of SION fixed for the items). 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. Admittedly the petitioner is an EOU and trading in marble. As per clause 6.8.(e) of the Trade Policy, an EOU is allowed sale in the Domestic Traffic Area of Scrap/waste/ remnants arising out of production process as per Standard Input Output Norms notified under Duty Exemption Scheme, on payment of concessional duties as applicable but within overall ceiling of 50% of Free On Board (FOB) value of exports. The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) from time to time issue notifications for fixation or addition of SION for different export products. In respect of items not covered by norms, Development Commissioner may fix ad hoc norms for a period of six months and within these period, norms should be fixed by Norms Committee. Ad hoc norms are to continue till such time norms are fixed by Norms Committee. The Development Commissioner had given permission to the petitioner to off load it scrap in the domestic market in the year 2004 @ 8.92% of inputs of imported block and 27.56% of inputs in case of indigenous block. This has been modified to 2% by the Board in its meeting held on 23.11.2012. This decision was later affirmed in a subsequent meeting held on 18.9.2014. 9. This has been modified to 2% by the Board in its meeting held on 23.11.2012. This decision was later affirmed in a subsequent meeting held on 18.9.2014. 9. Reading of the minutes of the Board held on the 23.11.2012 and 18.9.2014 does not show what was the criteria adopted by the Board while fixing the norms at 2% as maximum permissible limit of sale of rejects / scraps/waste / remnants in a domestic market. The Development Commissioner had initially given permission to the petitioner to dispose scrap in the domestic market in the year 2004 @ 8.92% of inputs of imported block and 27.56% of inputs in case of indigenous block but the same has been reduced and the basis of the reduction is not forthcoming from the file or the reply filed. As per the clause 6. 8 (e) of the trade policy an EOU is permitted to sell rejects within an overall limit of 50% in the domestic market on payment of duties as applicable to a sale under sub-para 6 (1). An understanding of the clause would mean that an EOU is permitted to sell up to the limit of 50% as stipulated and not beyond, subject to payment of duties. The decision to place an embargo of 2% is certainly a restriction being imposed upon the petitioner and will definitely effect business. It has to be kept in mind that the EOU is dealing with marble and there will be wastage since the marble blocks will have natural defects. 10. Clause 6.8(d) pertains to sale of rejects of such products which were meant for export, within the Domestic Territory. The respondents have by the Board meetings dated 23.11.2012 and affirmed in appeal on 18.9.2014, informed the petitioner that he would be entitled to sell 2% as maximum permissible limit of sale of rejects in a domestic market wherein clause 6.8(d) specifically provides that rejects can be sold in the market subject to payment of duties. Clause does not mention taking permission for such sale of rejects. 11. We are of the opinion that the two Paragraphs namely 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) are distinct and separate from each other. The word reject and waste have been defined in the Oxford dictionary to mean “to decide not to use, sell, publish, etc. Clause does not mention taking permission for such sale of rejects. 11. We are of the opinion that the two Paragraphs namely 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) are distinct and separate from each other. The word reject and waste have been defined in the Oxford dictionary to mean “to decide not to use, sell, publish, etc. something because its quality is not good enough” whereas waste/scrap means “things that are not wanted or cannot be used for their original purpose, but which have some value for the material they are made of”. The Board has in its meeting held on 23.11.2012 has not made any difference between the two categories and has clubbed the two together which is impressible. The decision taken by the Board does not indicate why there has been a deviation from the norms fixed in the year 2004 by the Development Commissioner especially when Standard Input Output Norms have not been notified by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). 12. The Foreign Trade Policy was brought about in the year 2004-2005 with a view for India to become a major player in world trade. As per the Trade Policy it was felt “that Trade is not an end in itself, but a means to economic growth and national development. The primary purpose is not the mere earning of foreign exchange, but the stimulation of greater economic activity.” To achieve its objective the strategy to be adopted was to “Unshackling of controls and creating an atmosphere of trust and transparency to unleash the innate entrepreneurship of our businessmen, industrialists and traders.” With the restriction imposed by allowing only 2% of reject /scrap/waste disposal to the petitioner, the respondent Board is going against its own policy as enumerated in Clause 6.8(e) 6.8 (d). The Board has not taken into account the fact that the petitioner industry would have no place to store its rejects and scrap if not allowed to sell in the Domestic Market. This will definitely hamper the growth and the production of the unit especially since investment in terms on finances will remain blocked with un disposed material be it rejects or waste. Moreover the Board has also lost sight of the fact that such EOU would have to pay duties as specified on such sales and thus also does generate revenue for the State. Moreover the Board has also lost sight of the fact that such EOU would have to pay duties as specified on such sales and thus also does generate revenue for the State. By not permitting disposal of rejects and sale as per the overall limits fixed and reducing to a mere 2% the Board has also caused loss of revenue to the State. 13. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the validity of circular dated 30.8.2005 and Notification No. 24 dated 31.8.2005 which had the effect of amending para 6.8(a) and para 6.8(h) of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 was under consideration before the Supreme Court. The policy in hand pertained to the question whether DTA sales by 100% EOUs would form an integral part of the EOUs scheme ? The case in hand pertains to challenging the permission granted by the Board of Approval for EOUs limiting the disposal of rejects/scrap to only 2%. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents has no bearing on the facts of the present case. 14. The restriction of permitting only 2% of disposal is unjust and arbitrary in nature and does not stand any test of reasoning and therefore the impugned decisions taken on 23.11.2012 and on 18.9.2014 are hereby set aside. 15. The writ petition is partly allowed and matter to be put before the Board of Approval for Export Oriented Units to decide the matter afresh keeping in view the Clause 6.8 (d) and 6.8(e) of the Foreign Trade Policy. It is expected that the Board will take a decision on the said matter within a period of one month of receipt of copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.