JUDGMENT : Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of Poly Vinyl Chloride. Ethylene Di-chloride ('EDC' for short) is a raw material for manufacturing Poly Vinyl Chloride. The petitioner is importing into India EDC for their manufacturing activity. EDC is a substance included as insecticide in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 1968 ('the Act' for short). Section 38 of the Act provides that nothing in the Act would apply to any substance included in the Schedule, if the same is intended for a purpose other than preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds and other forms of plant or animal life not useful to human beings. It is stated that a purpose other than the purposes made mention of in Section 38 of the Act is generally called non-insecticidal purpose. Since the petitioner is using EDC for a non-insecticidal purpose, it is stated that they have been importing EDC without obtaining registration and import permit in terms of the Act. While so during 2007, the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, has issued Ext.P7 trade notice to the effect that importers of EDC for non-insecticidal purposes without registration and import permit in terms of the Act shall furnish a certificate within three months from the Central Excise Officer concerned to the effect that the imported substance has been consumed for their manufacturing activity. It is stated that in the light of Ext.P7 trade notice, the petitioner has been importing EDC thereafter in accordance with the same. It is also stated by the petitioner that later when some custom houses entertained doubt as to whether registration and import permit under the Act is required for importing insecticides for non-insecticidal purposes, the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarified, in terms of Ext.P9 circular that in the light of Section 38 of the Act, clearance of insecticides imported for non-insecticidal purposes would not be subject to the requirement of registration and import permit under the Act. It is stated that there has been absolutely no impediment whatsoever to the petitioner thereafter for importing EDC. 2. While so, during October 2017, when the petitioner filed Bill of Entry for clearing a cargo containing EDC imported by them from Saudi Arabia, they were issued Ext.P11 communication by the first respondent stating that import permit from the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee is required for importing insecticides for non-insecticidal purposes also. 2. While so, during October 2017, when the petitioner filed Bill of Entry for clearing a cargo containing EDC imported by them from Saudi Arabia, they were issued Ext.P11 communication by the first respondent stating that import permit from the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee is required for importing insecticides for non-insecticidal purposes also. Ext.P11 communication refers to the minutes of 330th meeting of the Registration Committee constituted under Section 5 of the Act. Ext.P10 is the minutes of the said meeting of the Registration Committee under the Act held on 16.07.2012. In the said meeting, the Registration Committee has prescribed a new proforma for issuance of import permit for import of insecticides for non-insecticidal purposes. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P10 decision of the Registration Committee is ultra vires the Act. Since Ext.P11 communication is issued based on Ext.P10 decision, the petitioner seeks directions to the first respondent to permit them to clear consignments of EDC without insisting import permit from the statutory authorities under the Act. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent in the matter. It is reiterated by the first respondent in the counter affidavit that import permit in terms of the provisions of the Act is mandatory for importing EDC for non-insecticidal purposes. It is also stated by the first respondent in the counter affidavit that EDC comes within the purview of “Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989” and the petitioner, therefore, has to comply with the provisions of the said Rules also in the matter of importing EDC. 4. A statement has been filed by the Assistant Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Secretary of the Central Insecticides Board stating, among others, that in so far as EDC is a substance listed as “insecticide” in the Schedule to the Act, the provisions of the Act would apply to its import. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent as also the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on Section 38 of the Act, arduously contended that none of the provisions of the Act would apply to an insecticide imported for a non-insecticidal purpose and Ext.P10 decision of the Registration Committee is ultra vires the Act. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on Section 38 of the Act, arduously contended that none of the provisions of the Act would apply to an insecticide imported for a non-insecticidal purpose and Ext.P10 decision of the Registration Committee is ultra vires the Act. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [ 2000 (115) ELT 42 (S.C.)], the learned Senior Counsel also contended that the authorities under the Customs Act cannot take a stand contrary to the trade notices issued by the competent authorities under the said Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in the light of Ext.P7 trade notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, the first respondent ought to have permitted the petitioner to clear their cargo in terms of the said notice. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [ 1999 (7) SCC 84 ], the learned Senior Counsel further contended that circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs are binding on the authorities under the Customs Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in the light of Ext.P9 circular, the first respondent, at any rate, ought not to have raised any objection for release of the cargo to the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel has also brought to my notice the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai v. Synergies Castings Ltd. [2014 (313) TLT 50 (Mad.)] in which it was held that import permit under the Act is not required for import of insecticides for non-insecticidal use. 7. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has brought to my notice a notification issued by the Central Government on 01.01.2015 under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act ('the Foreign Trade Act' for short), in terms of which import permit is insisted from the Registration Committee under the Department of Agriculture and Co-operation for import of insecticides for non-insecticidal purposes. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, in the light of the said notification, the petitioner is not entitled to import EDC without obtaining import permit from the Registration Committee under the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, in the light of the said notification, the petitioner is not entitled to import EDC without obtaining import permit from the Registration Committee under the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has relied on the decision of this Court in Union of India and others v. Maliakkal Industrial Enterprises (ILR 2014 (3) KER 387) in support of the said contention. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent reiterated the stand taken by the first respondent, in the counter affidavit filed in the matter. In addition, it was also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that Rule 45 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 ('the Rules' for short) has now been substituted in terms of the Insecticides (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2017 and as per the amended Rules, Cochin Port is excluded from the ports in India at which insecticides could be imported. According to the learned Standing Counsel, in the light of the said provision in the Rules, the petitioner, at any rate, cannot clear EDC through Cochin Port. 9. In reply to the submissions made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India as also the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, it was clarified by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the notification issued by the Central Government under the Foreign Trade Act on 01.01.2015 does not apply to EDC. It was pointed out that the restriction mentioned in the notification applies only to the goods mentioned in Chapter 38 of Schedule-1 of the import policy declared by the Central Government as Indian Trade Clarification ('the ITC' for short). According to the learned Senior Counsel, EDC is only an item covered by Chapter 29 of Schedule-1 of the ITC. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the Central Government has imposed a restriction on 07.04.2016 in terms of a notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act for import of Boric Acid, another insecticide included in the Schedule to the Act, to the effect that its import will be permitted only on the basis of import permit issued by the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee under the Act. It was pointed out that an issue arose before this Court as to whether such a restriction could be imposed in the light of Section 38 of the Act in relation to an insecticide imported into India for a non-insecticidal purpose. The said issue was answered in the affirmative by the Division Bench of this Court in Maliakkal Industrial Enterprises (supra) holding that the provisions of the Act would not preclude the Central Government from imposing restrictions in the matter of importing insecticides under the Foreign Trade Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said judgment has nothing to do with the import of EDC as there are absolutely no restrictions whatsoever for importing EDC. 10. I have anxiously considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is seen that the Act is one intended to regulate import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith. Section 38 reads thus : “38. Exemption -(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to (a) the use of any insecticide by any person for his own household purposes or for kitchen garden or in respect of any land under his cultivation; (b) any substance specified or included in the schedule or any preparation containing any one or more such substances, if such substance or preparation is intended for purposes other than preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds and other forms of plant of animal life not useful to human beings.” The fact that the petitioner is importing EDC for a non insecticidal purpose is not in dispute. Ext.P7 is a trade notice issued by the competent authority under the Customs Act. In terms of the said notice, import of insecticides for non-insecticidal purposes is permitted without insisting registration and import permit from the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee, on complying with the condition mentioned therein viz, that the importer shall produce a certificate from the concerned Excise Inspector within three months as to the utilization of the substance imported for their manufacturing activity. Ext.P9 is a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Ext.P9 is a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. In Ext.P9 circular, after referring to Section 38 of the Act, the Central Board of Excise and Customs has clarified that clearance of insecticides for non-insecticidal purposes would not be subject to the requirement of registration and import permit of the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee. The relevant portion of Ext.P9 reads thus : “3. As may be seen, the aforementioned provisions of the said Section 38 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 are unambiguous and leave no scope interpretation. Essentially, the exemption from the provisions of the said Act would apply to those insecticides that are used for household purposes etc. or for other than insecticidal purpose that are specified in the said Section 38 would be outside the ambit of the provisions contained in insecticides Act, 1968. The implication is that the clearance of such imported items would not be subject to the requirement of registration/import permit from CIB/RC.” 4. Board desires that for the sake of uniformity the Custom Houses shall immediately align their local procedures in line with the above clarification. It is, however, clarified that the import of Boric Acid would continue to be governed by the specific instructions on the item that are currently in force. 5. Suitable public notice may be issued to guide the trade and industries.”(underline supplied) As explicit from the extracted portion, Ext.P9 circular was intended for maintaining uniformity in the procedure to be followed by all the custom houses. In Steel Authority of India (supra), the Apex Court has held that custom authorities cannot take one stand in one State and another stand in another State and the trade notices issued by one custom house must bind all custom authorities. Paragraph 3 of the said judgment reads thus : “3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that this trade notice had been issued only by the Bombay Customs House. It is hardly to be supposed that the Customs authorities can take one stand in one State and an other stand in another State. Paragraph 3 of the said judgment reads thus : “3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that this trade notice had been issued only by the Bombay Customs House. It is hardly to be supposed that the Customs authorities can take one stand in one State and an other stand in another State. The trade notice issued by one Customs House must bind all Customs authorities and, if it is erroneous, it should be withdrawn or amended, which in the instant case, admittedly, has not been done “ In Paper Products Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has declared that circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs would bind the authorities under the Customs Act. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment reads thus : “It is clear from the above said pronouncements of this Court that apart from the fact that the circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Department, the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the said circulars even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the statutory provision. The ratio of the judgment of this Court further precludes the right of the Department to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the circulars. Therefore, it is clear that so far as the Department is concerned, whatever action it has to take, the same will have to be consistent with the circular which is in force at the relevant point of time.” In the light of Section 38 of the Act as also Ext.P9 Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and the decisions of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India (supra) and Paper Products Ltd. (supra), the stand of the first respondent that EDC imported by the petitioner can be cleared only if the petitioner produces import permit issued by the statutory authorities under the Act, cannot be accepted. This exactly is the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Synergies Castings Ltd (supra). Paragraph 3 of the said judgment reads thus: “We have gone through the entire order passed by the Tribunal. This exactly is the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Synergies Castings Ltd (supra). Paragraph 3 of the said judgment reads thus: “We have gone through the entire order passed by the Tribunal. In fact, having considered the submission made on behalf of the appellant that as regards Copper Sulphate and Nickel Chloride under import, there was no such requirement to obtain registration certificate or import permit for their import as per EXIM policy, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation in respect of Nickel Chloride and Copper Sulphide as well as penalty imposed thereon. The Tribunal also relied on the Section 38(1)(b) of Insecticides Act, 1968 and held that import of insecticides for non-insecticidal use is not subject to the restrictions contained in the Act. Therefore, we do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal in order to interfere with the same.” 12. Coming to Ext.P10 decision of the Registration Committee constituted under Section 5 of the Act, it is seen that in terms of the said decision, the Registration Committee has only prescribed a proforma for issuance of licence for import of insecticides for non-in-secticidal purposes. The decision, if any, taken by the Registration Committee insisting import permit for import of insecticides for non-insecticidal purposes is not placed on record. Be that as it may, actions of statutory authorities must be confined to the four corners of the statute, other wise the same would be nullity. In so far as insecticides intended for non-insecticidal purposes are brought out of the Act in terms of Section 38 therein, Ext.P10 decision of the Central Insecticides Board and the Registration Committee constituted under the Act, can only be ultra vires the Act. 13. Now, I shall deal with the submission made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that import of insecticides for non-insecticidal purposes can be regulated in terms of the provisions contained in the Foreign Trade Act. As conceded by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Maliakkal Industrial Enterprises (supra), there cannot be any dispute to the said proposition. The question, therefore, is as to whether there exists any restriction under the Foreign Trade Act as regards import of EDC to India. As conceded by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Maliakkal Industrial Enterprises (supra), there cannot be any dispute to the said proposition. The question, therefore, is as to whether there exists any restriction under the Foreign Trade Act as regards import of EDC to India. The notification relied on by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India reads thus: Notification No.106 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 Dated the 1 January, 2015 Subject: Amendment in import policy conditions under ITC (HS) 4 digit code 3808 S.O.(E): In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of FT (D&R) Act, 1992, read with paragraph 1, 3 and 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014, the Central Government hereby inserts the following Policy condition as Policy Condition no.3 under Chapter 38 of ITC(HS), 2012 -Schedule -1 (Import Policy): “3. Under Section (9) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 all chemicals intended to be used as insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides etc. [referred to as 'insecticides' under the Act] require mandatory registration for import. In cases, where the 'insecticide' is imported for non-insecticidal purpose, an import permit is necessary from the Registration Committee under the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. The Registration Committee while granting registration or a permit for import of an insecticide spells out the conditions for import which inter alia, may include reference to the source of import. No 'insecticide' can be imported from a source other than that specified on the certificate of registration or the permit, as the case may be. In addition, the Registration Committee may issue regulatory guidelines from time to time with respect to safety, efficacy, quality etc. which warrant full compliance from importers.” 2. Effect of this Notification: The policy provisions under the Insecticides Act, 1968 for import of insecticides under EXIM code 3808 of Chapter 38 in ITC (HS), 2012 -Schedule -1 (Import Policy) are being notified.” In terms of the said notification, an additional condition was inserted in Chapter 38 of Schedule 1 of ITC. In the light of the said notification, there cannot be any doubt that after 01/01/2015, the date of the notification, import of goods covered by Chapter 38 of Schedule-1 of the ITC is governed by the said condition as well. In the light of the said notification, there cannot be any doubt that after 01/01/2015, the date of the notification, import of goods covered by Chapter 38 of Schedule-1 of the ITC is governed by the said condition as well. It is seen that EDC is a substance included in Chapter 29 of Schedule-1 of ITC dealing with organic chemicals against EXIM Code 2903 15 00. There is no condition similar to the conditions covered by the notification dated 01/01/2015 in Chapter 29 of Schedule-1 of ITC. As such, the notification dated 01/01/2015 may not have any application as far as the import of EDC is concerned. 14. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, placing reliance on the goods mentioned against EXIM code 3808 and its sub-headings 52 and 89 in Chapter 38 of Schedule-1 of ITC, submitted that EDC would fall under the said goods and therefore, the petitioner is bound by the condition incorporated in Chapter 38 in terms of the notification dated 01/01/2015. The goods falling under EXIM code 3808 and its sub-headings are the following: 3808 INSECTICIDES, RODENTICIDES, FUNGICIDES, HERBICIDES, ANTI-SPROUTING PRODUCTS AND PLANT-GROWTH REGULATORS, DISINFECTANTS AND SIMILAR PRODUCTS, PUT UP IN FORMS OR PACKINGS FOR RETAIL SALE OR AS PREPARATIONS OR ARTICLES (FOR EXAMPLE, SULPHUR-TREATED BANDS, WICKS AND CANDLES, AND FLY-PAPERS) Goods specified in Sub-heading Note 1 to this Chapter: 3808 52 3808 52 00 DDT (ISO) (clofenotane (INN), in packings of a net weight content not exceeding 300 g. Free 3808 59 3808 59 00 Other Goods specified in Sub-heading Note 2 to this Chapter: Free Sub-heading note given in Chapter 38 of Schedule-1 of ITC clarifies that goods classified under sub-headings (52) and (59) under EXIM code 3808 cover only goods covered by heading 3808 containing the various substances mentioned therein including EDC. The said sub-heading note reads thus: 1. The said sub-heading note reads thus: 1. Sub-headings 3803 52 and 3808 59 cover only goods of heading 3808, containing one or more of the following substances: alachlor (ISO); binapacryl (ISO); camphechlor (ISO) (toxaphene); captafol (ISO); chlordane (ISO); chlordimeform (ISO); chlorobenzilate (ISO); DDT (ISO)(Clofenotane(INN), 1, 1, 1-trichloro-2, 2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane); dieldrin (ISO, INN); 4, 6-dinitro-o-cresol (DNOC(ISO)) or its salts; dinoseb(ISO)(1, 2-dibromoethane); ethylene dischloride (ISO)(1, 2-dicholoroethane), fluoracetamide (ISO); heptachlor (ISO); hexachlorobenzene (ISO); 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH(ISO), including Iindane (ISO, INN); mercury compounds; methamidophos (ISO); monocrotophos (ISO); oxirane (ethylene oxide); parathion (ISO); parathion-methyl (ISO) (methyl parathion); penta-and octabromodiphenyl ethers; pentachlorophenol (ISO), its salts or its esters; perfluorooctane sulphonic acid and its salts; perfluorooctane sulphonamides; perfluorooctane sulphonyl fluoride; phosphamidon (ISO); 2, 4, 5-T (ISO) (2, 4, 5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid), its salts or its esters; tributyltin compounds. In other words, the goods covered by sub-headings 52 and 59 of EXIM code 3808 are goods falling under heading 3808. The question is whether EDC would fall under heading 3808. It is evident from the description of the items included under headings 3808 that only insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant-growth regulators, disinfectants and similar products, put up in forms or packings for retail sale or as preparations or articles alone would fall under heading 3808. EDC imported by the petitioner being not a product put up in forms or packings for retail sale or as preparations or articles and since EDC is specifically included as an item in Chapter 29 of Schedule-1 of ITC, it cannot be contended that the same would fall under heading 3808 of Chapter 38 of Schedule-1 of ITC. 15. The contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, relying on the Insecticides (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2017 is also without substance as it is well settled that conferment of Rule making power by an Act does not enable the Rule making authority to make a Rule that travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act. (See Additional District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Administration V. Siri Ram [(2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 451)] For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P11 notice is quashed and the first respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to clear consignments of EDC without insisting on registration and import permit issued by the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee under the Act.