JUDGMENT : UJJAL BHUYAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Akula Venu, appellant-in-person and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. We have also heard Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 7. 2. This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 16349 of 2011 filed by the appellant as the petitioner. 3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the public notice No. 47(RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated 18.05.2011 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade as illegal and arbitrary and sought for quashing of the same. 4. Case of the appellant as pleaded in the writ affidavit is that it is a proprietary concern engaged in trading in agricultural produce, particularly buying and selling of popcorn/maize. Proprietor also claims to be an agriculturist himself engaged in the cultivation of popcorn. It was pleaded that popcorn is widely grown in Karnataka and parts of Andhra Pradesh. Though maize as an agricultural produce is grown in India, one of its varieties i.e. popcorn is imported from United States of America and Argentina under the Customs Act, 1962 and under the Foreign Trade Policy framed in terms of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Appellant has acknowledged that the popcorn imported from the above two countries are of better quality and cheaper in value than the one which is domestically grown. However, to ensure that domestic producers of popcorn and the market is not harmed, Government of India under the Foreign Trade Policy has always permitted import of popcorn by insisting on actual user condition and not for the purpose of trading. As per commitment of the Government of India under the World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, four agricultural products were negotiated. India being a signatory is committed to allow Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) for four items at concessional rate of customs duty. These are: “1. Skimmed and whole milk powder. Milk food for babies etc. (Tariff Code No. 0402.10 or 0402.21) 2. Maize (Corn) - other (Tariff Code No. 1005.90) 3. Rape; Colza, Canola or Mustard Oil, other (Refined) (Tariff Code No. 1514.19 and 1514.99) 4. These are: “1. Skimmed and whole milk powder. Milk food for babies etc. (Tariff Code No. 0402.10 or 0402.21) 2. Maize (Corn) - other (Tariff Code No. 1005.90) 3. Rape; Colza, Canola or Mustard Oil, other (Refined) (Tariff Code No. 1514.19 and 1514.99) 4. Crude Sunflower Seed or Safflower Oil or Fractions thereof (Tariff Code No. 1512.11).” 5. It is stated that in view of such commitment given to WTO, Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, Department of Revenue had issued Notification No. 21/2002- Customs dated 01.03.2002 notifying concessional rate of duty for the above four items under TRQ subject to issuance of necessary allocation certificate by the Exim Facilitation Committee. Accordingly, Director General of Foreign Trade had issued Public Notice No. 38/2002-2007 dated 04.10.2002 laying down the procedure for importing various items under TRQ. As per the aforesaid procedure, state trading enterprises were allowed to import the above commodities only on behalf of actual users. 6. According to the appellant, the said procedure duly protected the domestic producers of popcorn as the imported popcorn was not available for trading under the concessional rate of customs duty. However, upsetting the said procedure, Director General of Foreign Trade issued the impugned public notice dated 18.05.2011 amending the procedure of TRQ scheme. As per the said public notice under the TRQ scheme, import of maize (corn) is allowed duty free with effect from the date of the impugned public notice; besides, the actual user condition would not be mandatory for import of all items under the TRQ scheme. 7. This came to be challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge by filing W.P. No. 16349 of 2011. Basic contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) was not competent to amend the procedure of TRQ scheme, the competence lying with the Central Government. Impugned notice doing away with the actual user condition was not in the greater public interest as it would seriously harm the interest of domestic producers and exporters. Already sufficient incentive was granted to the importers of popcorn by providing for concessional customs duty at 15% as against the regular customs duty of 15%. Even that was also withdrawn making import of popcorn free from customs duty. Already sufficient incentive was granted to the importers of popcorn by providing for concessional customs duty at 15% as against the regular customs duty of 15%. Even that was also withdrawn making import of popcorn free from customs duty. If in addition to that the actual user condition was done away with, it would totally affect the farmers of popcorn in India in an adverse manner. Therefore, such a decision was arbitrary as well. 8. The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 accepted that Government of India had relaxed the customs duty insofar popcorn is concerned and made it concessional at 15% in discharge of India’s obligations under WTO. This concessional tariff rate was further reduced to 0% vide customs notification No. 9/2007 dated 25.01.2007 following negotiations under WTO. Though initially the procedure prescribed for import of popcorn under TRQ scheme was restricted to eligible state trading enterprises only on behalf of actual users, following the Inter Ministerial meeting held on 29.04.2003, the actual user condition was made not mandatory; rather the allotment was to be made on priority basis. This was implemented by the subsequent public notices issued thereafter declaring actual user condition as non-mandatory and optional. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 also furnished data to show that as against allocation of popcorn under TRQ, the actual imports were much less and therefore, the quota remained largely unutilized, thus being insignificant to effect the domestic market. It was pointed out that imports being less than 1% of the exports, no harm or prejudice would be caused to the domestic market. Withdrawal of actual user condition was sought to be justified on the ground that maize (corn) under TRQ scheme being a food item, compliance with actual user condition would not be entirely possible. Hence, in the Inter Ministerial meeting, it was decided to do away with the actual user condition by prioritizing imports in terms of need base of the applicants. 9. Respondent No. 7 which was not initially added as a respondent in the writ proceedings was subsequently impleaded by the Court and thereafter filed affidavit. Though respondent No. 7 filed a separate affidavit, the stand taken was more or less identical to the one taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 9. Respondent No. 7 which was not initially added as a respondent in the writ proceedings was subsequently impleaded by the Court and thereafter filed affidavit. Though respondent No. 7 filed a separate affidavit, the stand taken was more or less identical to the one taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Additionally 7th respondent contended that it had imported corn under the TRQ scheme and though the imported corn had reached India, on account of interim stay granted by the Writ Court, it was unable to take delivery. 10. After considering the rival pleadings, learned Single Judge framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the impugned public notice issued by the DGFT is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Government of India’s policy, particularly, regarding the condition of actual user? 2. Whether the impugned public notice is merely a clarification of the decision of the Government of India? 3. If the withdrawal of condition of actual user is held to be a decision by the Government of India, is it not affected by non-application of mind and is it not arbitrary and against public interest? 11. Learned Single Judge considered issue Nos. 1 and 2 together and thereafter held as follows: “22. In my view, the policy of the Government of India under the Customs Act as well as the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, notified in the customs notification and the foreign trade policy and the public notices thereafter issued by DGFT from time to time amply make it clear that all the decisions are that of the Government of India. Petitioner also accepts the same as is evident from paragraphs 21 and 22 of the affidavit as well as the prayer in the writ petition. It is, therefore, not open for the petitioner to contend that the impugned public notice is a decision of the DGFT and not that of the Government of India. Even otherwise under clause 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, extracted above, shows that the policy of the Government of India is notified by DGFT through public notices. I am, therefore, unable to see any substance in the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner so far as point No. 1 is concerned. So far as justiciability of the policy parameters is concerned, the legal position is well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court. I am, therefore, unable to see any substance in the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner so far as point No. 1 is concerned. So far as justiciability of the policy parameters is concerned, the legal position is well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court. A profitable reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. State of A.P. (2006) 4 SCC 162 , which was also a case dealing with THE export policy of Government of India, the relevant portion of Para 67 as follows: “......it is also the consistent policy of the Government of India to encourage export of meat and meat produce......Therefore, the position of law remains that the directive principles and fundamental duties cannot in themselves serve to invalidate a legislation or of a policy. Moreover, the export policy itself permits only export of meat from buffaloes that are certified as not useful for milching, breeding or draught purposes. Therefore, if properly implemented, it cannot be said that the policy will necessarily have adverse consequences, especially in view of the foreign exchange obtained through it. Accordingly, we are unable to accede to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the meat export policy, as made by the Central Government must be struck down.” 23. Another decision of the Supreme Court in Darshan Oils Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 345 would also be relevant to be noticed as the said decision deals with the amendment of import policy of the Government of India wherein it was held that withdrawal of a notification issued under the Customs Act in public interest does not amount to violation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the import policy prevailing at the time of import of goods was upheld. Para 16 of the counter of respondents 2 and 4 refers to another decision of the Supreme Court in P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 1996 (86) ELT 3 (SC) : (1996) 6 SCC 268, Para 5 of which is relevant to be extracted, as under: “5. It would, therefore, be clear that grant of licence depends upon the policy prevailing as on the date of grant of the licence. It would, therefore, be clear that grant of licence depends upon the policy prevailing as on the date of grant of the licence. The Court, therefore, would not bind the Government with a policy which was existing on the date of application as per previous policy. A prior decision would not bind the Government for all times to come. When the Government is satisfied that change in the policy was necessary in the public interest, it would be entitled to revise the policy and lay own new policy. The Court, therefore, would prefer to allow free play to the Government to evolve fiscal policy in the public interest and to act upon the same. Equally, the Government is left free to determine priorities in the matters of allocations or allotments or utilization of its finances in the public interest. It is equally entitled, therefore, to issue or withdraw or modify the export or import policy in accordance with the scheme evolved. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners have no vested or accrued right for the issuance of permits on the MEE or NQE, nor is the Government bound by its previous policy. It would be open to the Government to evolve the new schemes and the petitioners would get their legitimate expectations accomplished in accordance with either of the two schemes subject to their satisfying the conditions required in the scheme. The High Court, therefore, was right in its conclusion that the Government is not barred by the promises or legitimate expectation from evolving new policy in the impugned notification.” 24. In view of the aforesaid legal position, therefore, the policy of the Government of India stipulating the customs duty at Nil rate and withdrawing the condition of Actual User cannot be said to be arbitrary, particularly, in view of the factual position evident from the table, extracted above, that the imports being way below the quota prescribed has no affect on domestic growers or the market and no harm to domestic growers or consumers is caused by notifying duty free import of maize (corn) and withdrawing the restriction of Actual User. 25. In view of the discussion above, the impugned public notice is held to be issued by DGFT to implement the decision of the Government of India and is merely clarificatory in nature in conformity with the public notices of similar nature issued every year from 2003 onwards. 25. In view of the discussion above, the impugned public notice is held to be issued by DGFT to implement the decision of the Government of India and is merely clarificatory in nature in conformity with the public notices of similar nature issued every year from 2003 onwards. Points 1 and 2 are accordingly answered against the petitioner.” 12. Thus, according to the learned Single Judge, it was a policy decision of Government of India stipulating customs duty on imported popcorn at nil rate and withdrawing the condition of actual user. Such a decision cannot be said to be arbitrary, more particularly in view of the factual position that imports being way below the quota prescribed has no effect on domestic growers of the market and no harm to domestic growers or consumers would be caused by notifying duty free import of maize (corn) and withdrawing the restriction of actual user. Learned Single Judge further held that the impugned public notice was issued by the DGFT to implement the decision of the Government of India and was merely clarificatory in nature in consonance with public notices of similar nature issued from the year 2003 onwards. 13. Insofar issue No. 3 was concerned, learned Single Judge held as follows: “26. In view of the discussion above, particularly, the extent of quota allotted under TRQ and the actual imports, as discussion in Para 13 above, it cannot be said that the policy of Government of India with regard to import and export, on the facts of the present case, is justiciable. Even otherwise the said policy cannot be said to be arbitrary and against public interest. Point No. 3 is accordingly answered against the petitioner.” 14. Thus according to the learned Single Judge, the decision of the Central Government fixing the quota allotted under TRQ and to make such import at zero tariff rate by making the actual user condition non-mandatory cannot be said to be arbitrary being based on non-application of mind and against public interest. Learned Single Judge further held said policy to be non-justiciable. 15. Thus on that basis, learned Single Judge vide the judgment and order dated 23.01.2012 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 16. It was thereafter that the present writ appeal came to be filed. A division bench of this Court passed an interim order on 04.04.2012. Learned Single Judge further held said policy to be non-justiciable. 15. Thus on that basis, learned Single Judge vide the judgment and order dated 23.01.2012 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 16. It was thereafter that the present writ appeal came to be filed. A division bench of this Court passed an interim order on 04.04.2012. Division bench had considered certain provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy framed thereunder. Thereafter the division bench prima facie held that the Foreign Trade Policy can only be amended by the Central Government. However, by issuing the impugned public notice dated 18.05.2011, DGFT had amended the Foreign Trade Policy which is not permissible. In this connection, the division bench referred to Para 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy and opined that the said provision does not confer any power of amendment of the Foreign Trade Policy by DGFT. That apart, division bench further held that doing away with the actual user condition would be permissible only in public interest, that too, after consultation with the Policy Relaxation Committee. There is nothing to suggest that such prior consultation had taken place. Opining that the Central Government had not amended the Foreign Trade Policy or done away with the actual user condition for import of maize (corn), the division bench stayed the impugned public notice dated 18.05.2011. 17. Appellant-in-person has submitted written arguments. Assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, appellant-in-person who has argued with great conviction submitted that DGFT has no power under Para 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy to amend the actual user condition. Such a decision is in utter contravention of Sections 3(2)(3)(4), 4, 5 and 6(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 besides several other statutes. Elaborating on this aspect, he submits that under Section 6(3) of the aforesaid Act, it is not the DGFT but the Central Government who can restrict, prohibit or otherwise regulate import of any goods vide an order passed under Sections 3(2) and 4 of the aforesaid Act. That apart any such order passed must be ratified by the Parliament in compliance to Section 19(3) of the said Act. That apart any such order passed must be ratified by the Parliament in compliance to Section 19(3) of the said Act. He further submits that import of popcorn i.e. maize (corn) is regulated amongst others by the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 and the Foreign Trade (Exemption from Application of Rules in Certain Cases) Order, 1993. In terms of the regulatory frame work, import of any good can be done only on the strength of a licence though only the Food Corporation of India (FCI) is exempt from the requirement of such a license. From the documents on record, it is evident that it is FCI and the state trading enterprises which are entitled to import maize (corn) under TRQ. His further contention is that even if it is assumed that DGFT is entitled to dispense with the actual user condition, the same can only be done in consultation with the Policy Relaxation Committee. 18. Further submission of the appellant-in-person is that issuance of the public notice by DGFT is a colourable exercise of power being an act of favouritism towards the importers and discrimination against the domestic growers of popcorn. Such a decision will adversely harm the interest of domestic producers and therefore it is arbitrary and not at all in the public interest. Though respondents have relied upon the Inter Ministerial meeting and the decision taken therein, it is contended that the actual user condition was never deleted in subsequent public notices or notifications. He therefore submits that impugned public notice being wholly illegal and arbitrary is liable to be interfered with; so also the decision of the learned Single Judge. 19. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have reiterated their contentions made before the learned Single Judge. Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the said respondents has asserted that DGFT had the necessary competence to issue the impugned public notice. In this connection, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Agricas LLP, 2020 SCC Online SC 675. He has also referred to various provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and submits that learned Single Judge was fully justified in validating the authority of the DGFT in issuing the impugned public notice. In this connection, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Agricas LLP, 2020 SCC Online SC 675. He has also referred to various provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and submits that learned Single Judge was fully justified in validating the authority of the DGFT in issuing the impugned public notice. He further submits that what should be the rate of tariff of an imported item and whether an imported item should have a condition like actual user are all matters of policy. Court should not interfere with the policy decisions of the Government. Before concluding, he submitted that there is no adverse impact on the domestic farmers as contended by the appellant. He submits that exports of maize were 26,00,000 metric tons in 2009-10 and 17,00,000 metric tons in 2010-11. On the other hand, imports were 19,000 metric tons and 7,000 metric tons respectively for the above periods. Thus, imports were less than 1% of exports. That apart, maize quota of 5,00,000 metric tons under TRQ scheme remains largely unutilized. 19.1. In support of such submissions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. State of A.P. (2006) 4 SCC 162 (ii) Darshan Oils Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 345 (iii) PTR Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 268 20. Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel submits that issue raised in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal lies within a very narrow compass. Question is whether DGFT is a part of the Central Government and therefore competent to have issued the impugned public notice. After taking the Court to various provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014, he submits that all along it was the DGFT which had issued notifications and public notices. By the impugned public notice, DGFT had amended its own notification. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Agricas LLP (supra). Learned Senior Counsel submits that ultimately whether import of popcorn under the TRQ should be subjected to actual user condition or not is a matter of policy. By the impugned public notice, DGFT had amended its own notification. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Agricas LLP (supra). Learned Senior Counsel submits that ultimately whether import of popcorn under the TRQ should be subjected to actual user condition or not is a matter of policy. The Inter Ministerial Committee had considered the impact of the actual user condition and thereafter in its meeting held on 29.04.2003, it was decided that instead of making import subject to the actual user condition, it should be prioritized in terms of the need base of the applicants. It was thereafter that public notices were issued by DGFT culminating in the impugned public notice. He therefore submits that learned Single Judge had rightly declined to interfere with the impugned public notice. Writ Appeal being devoid of merit should be dismissed. 21. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 22. At the outset, we may briefly advert to provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the 1992 Act’). Parliament has enacted the 1992 Act to provide for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports into and augmenting exports from India and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 23. Section 5 of the 1992 Act provides for foreign trade policy. It says that Central Government may from time to time formulate and announce by a notification in the official gazette the Foreign Trade Policy and may also in like manner amend that policy. As per the proviso, the Central Government may direct that in respect of the special economic zones, the Foreign Trade Policy shall apply to the goods, services and technology with such exceptions, modification and adaptations as may be specified by it by notification in the official gazette. 24. Section 6 of the 1992 Act deals with appointment of Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and his functions. Sub-Section (1) says that Central Government may appoint any person to be the Director General of Foreign Trade for the purposes of the 1992 Act. Under Sub-Section (2), the Director General shall advice the Central Government in the formulation of Foreign Trade Policy and shall be responsible for carrying out that policy. Sub-Section (1) says that Central Government may appoint any person to be the Director General of Foreign Trade for the purposes of the 1992 Act. Under Sub-Section (2), the Director General shall advice the Central Government in the formulation of Foreign Trade Policy and shall be responsible for carrying out that policy. Sub-Section (3) provides that Central Government may by order published in the official gazette direct that any power exercisable by it under the 1992 Act other than the powers under Sections 3, 5, 15, 16 and 19 may also be exercised in such cases and subject to such conditions by the Director General or such other officer subordinate to the Director General. 25. Section 19 is the rule making provision. 26. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 of the 1992 Act, Central Government has made the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. 27. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the 1992 Act, Central Government enacted the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 and notified the same which came into force with effect from 05.06.2012. As per paragraph 1.2 of Chapter 1A, Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 incorporates provisions relating to export and import of goods and services with effect from 27.08.2009 till 31.03.2014 unless otherwise specified. However, the aforesaid policy came into force with effect from 05.06.2012. As per paragraph 1.3, the Central Government reserves the right in public interest to make any amendments by notification to the Foreign Trade Policy in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the 1992 Act. 28. Chapter 2 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 contains general provisions regarding imports and exports. As per Para 2.1(a), exports and imports shall be ‘free’, except when regulated. Such regulation would be as per the Foreign Trade Policy and/or Indian Trade Classification (Harmonized System) [briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘ITC(HS)’] which is a classification for export and import items. ITC(HS) contains item wise export and import policy regimes and is aligned with International Harmonized System maintained by the World Customs Organization. 29. Para 2.3 deals with interpretation of the policy. As per Clause (a), the decision of DGFT shall be final and binding on all matters relating to interpretation of policy or provisions in the Handbook of Procedures (Volume-I), Handbook of Procedures (Volume-II) or classification of any item for import/export policy in ITC(HS). 29. Para 2.3 deals with interpretation of the policy. As per Clause (a), the decision of DGFT shall be final and binding on all matters relating to interpretation of policy or provisions in the Handbook of Procedures (Volume-I), Handbook of Procedures (Volume-II) or classification of any item for import/export policy in ITC(HS). As per Clause (b), a Policy Interpretation Committee (PIC) may be constituted to aid and advise the DGFT. Under Para 2.4, DGFT may specify the procedure to be followed by an exporter or importer or by any licensing/regional authority or by any other authority for the purpose of implementing the 1992 Act, the Rules framed thereunder as well as the Foreign Trade Policy. Such procedures or amendments, if any, shall be published by means of a public notice. Para 2.5 empowers the DGFT to grant relaxation or relief on grounds of genuine hardship and adverse impact on trade. Such request may be considered only after consulting amongst other the Policy Relaxation Committee. Para 2.7 says that any goods/services, the export or import of which is ‘restricted’ may be exported or imported only in accordance with an authorization/ permission/license or in accordance with the procedure prescribed in a notification/public notice issued in this regard. As per Para 2.8 which deals with terms and conditions of an authorization, every authorization shall contain such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Regional Authority (RA), which may include amongst others actual user condition. Para 2.9 says that no person may claim an authorization as a right and DGFT or RA shall have the power refusing to grant or renew such authorization in accordance with the 1992 Act as well as the Rules made thereunder and the Foreign Trade Policy. 30. ‘Actual User’ has been defined in Para 9.4 to mean an actual user who may be either industrial or non-industrial. Insofar ‘actual user (Non-Industrial)’ is concerned, it means a person who utilizes the imported goods for his own use in any commercial establishment carrying on business, trade or profession; or any laboratory, scientific or research and development (R&D) institution, university or other educational institution or hospital; or any service industry. 31. That brings us to the Handbook of Procedures (Volume-I) laying down the procedure for the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. 31. That brings us to the Handbook of Procedures (Volume-I) laying down the procedure for the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. In exercise of powers conferred under paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) notified the aforesaid Handbook which came into effect from 27.08.2009. Para 2.59 of the Handbook of Procedures (Volume-I) lays down the procedure for import under the Tariff Rate Quota scheme which is extracted hereunder: “2.59 Attention is invited to Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Notification No. 21/2002-Customs dated 01.03.2002. As per it, import of four items viz. (1) Skimmed and whole milk powder, milk food for babies etc. (0402.10 or 0402.21) (2) Maize (corn): other (1005.90) (3) Crude sunflower seed or safflower oil or fractions thereof (1512.11) (4) Refined rape, colza or mustard oil, other (1514.19 or 1514.99) is allowed in a financial year, up to quantities as well as such concessional rates of customs duty as indicated below: S. No. ITC Code No. and Item Quantity of Quota Concessional Duty 1 Tariff Code No. 0402.10 or 0402.21 Skimmed and whole Milk Powder. Milk Food for babies etc. 10,000 MTs 15% 2 Tariff Code No. 1005.90 Maize (Corn): Other 5,00,000 MTs 15% 3 Tariff Code No. 1512.11 Crude Sunflower seed or safflower oil or fractions thereof 150,000 MTS 50% 4 Tariff Code No. 1514.19 and 1514.99 Rape, Colza, Canola or Mustard Oil, Other (Refined) 150,000 MTs 45% 31.1. From the above, we find that insofar import of maize (corn) is concerned, the quantity allowed to be imported under the Tariff Rate Quota scheme was 5,00,000 Metric Tons with concessional duty at 15%. It was thereafter that Notification No. 21/2002 - Customs dated 01.03.2002 was issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. This was followed by Public Notice No. 38/2002-2007 dated 04.10.2002 under the subject ‘Procedure for import of various items under TRQ’. It was thereafter that Notification No. 21/2002 - Customs dated 01.03.2002 was issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. This was followed by Public Notice No. 38/2002-2007 dated 04.10.2002 under the subject ‘Procedure for import of various items under TRQ’. As per eligible entities for allocation of quota in respect of maize (corn) Tariff Code No. 1005.90, it was mentioned that National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED), State Trading Corporation (STC), Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation (MMTC), Projects and Equipment Corporation of India Limited (PEC), Spices Trading Corporation Limited (STCL) and State Cooperative Marketing Federations were eligible to avail the quota, but it was clarified that they had to make the imports only on behalf of the actual users. 32. By office memorandum dated 26.04.2003 issued by the Office of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, it was informed that an Inter Ministerial meeting would be held by the DGFT to consider specifying the procedure in respect of TRQ mechanism. The agenda of the aforesaid meeting was circulated to all the stake holders which included amongst others, the issue as to whether TRQ scheme should be limited to actual users only or the scope should be broadened. The Inter Ministerial Committee meeting held on 29.04.2003 resolved that the TRQ scheme was earlier limited to actual users only. However, it was pointed out that instead of making import subject to the actual user condition, imports could be prioritized in terms of the need base of the applicants. Therefore, the Exim Facilitation Committee should decide allocation of quota to the applicants. 33. It was thereafter that Public Notice No. 7 dated 09.05.2003 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. It was mentioned therein that in exercise of powers conferred under paragraph 2.4 of the Export and Import Policy, 2002-2007, DGFT had notified the procedure for allocation of TRQ. In respect of maize (corn) having Tariff Code No. 1005.90, it was notified as under: “(b) Maize (corn) (Tariff Code No. 1005.90): National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (NAFED), State Trading Corporation (STC), Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation (MMTC), Projects & Equipment Corporation of India Limited (PEC), Spices Trading Corporation Limited (STCL) and State Cooperative Marketing Federations are eligible to avail the quota as per the request(s) of applicants received.” 33.1. From the above, we find that the aforesaid Public Notice did not refer to the actual user condition. Agencies like NAFED, STC etc. were made eligible to avail the quota as per request of the applicants received. Therefore, this public notice did not indicate or insisted upon the actual user condition. This was followed by subsequent Public Notice No. 63 dated 12.05.2004 and Public Notice dated 27.05.2005 without insisting upon the actual user condition. 34. It was thereafter that Notification No. 43 (RE-2006)/2004-2009 dated 09.02.2007 was issued whereby it was mentioned that the existing policy for items falling at Exim Code 1005.90 [maize (corn)] would remain in abeyance till 31.12.2007 but during this period, import of this item would be allowed freely. This notification was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the 1992 Act read with paragraph 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009 which is pari materia to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014. It was issued by the DGFT being the Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India on behalf of the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce. 35. Finally Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce through the DGFT issued the impugned Public Notice dated 18.05.2011 amending the procedure of TRQ scheme. This public notice was issued in exercise of powers conferred under paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 and paragraph 1.1 of the Handbook of Procedures (Volume-I). The effect of the public notice was that under the TRQ scheme, import of maize (corn), ITC(HS) Code 1005.90 was allowed duty free and with effect from the date of the said public notice; the actual user condition would not be mandatory for imports of all items under the TRQ Scheme. 36. From an analysis of the above factual matrix, it is evident that following the Inter Ministerial Committee meeting held on 29.04.2003, in all public notices or notifications issued by the DGFT or by the Central Government, there was no mention of the actual user condition. In other words, the said condition was not made a condition precedent for availing the benefit of import of popcorn under the TRQ quota. In fact as per the notification dated 09.02.2007 issued by the DGFT on behalf of the Government of India, the import of popcorn was made free without any import duty. 37. In other words, the said condition was not made a condition precedent for availing the benefit of import of popcorn under the TRQ quota. In fact as per the notification dated 09.02.2007 issued by the DGFT on behalf of the Government of India, the import of popcorn was made free without any import duty. 37. We have already analyzed the provisions of the 1992 Act, the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 and the Handbook of Procedure (Volume-I) wherefrom a reasonable view can be taken that the DGFT is an integral part of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce. May be, similar to the status of Central Board of Direct Taxes under the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue or for that matter, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. 38. In Agricas LLP (supra), challenge before the Supreme Court was to a notification dated 29.03.2019 and trade notice dated 16.04.2019 issued by the DGFT on the ground of excessive delegation as not being in accord with Sub-Section (2) to Section 3 read with Sub-Section (3) to Section 6 of the 1992 Act. Supreme Court after threadbare analysis of the 1992 Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder held that the DGFT can dilute and dispense with the actual user condition. 39. In the ultimate analysis, the issue boils down to a policy decision of the Central Government as to whether the benefit of imports in respect of popcorn under the TRQ scheme should be limited to the actual users or should be made broad-based. This is a policy decision of the Central Government and as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, no arbitrariness or unreasonableness is discernible in the formulation of such public policy to warrant judicial interference. Further, as the statistics have revealed import of popcorn into India was less than 1% of exports of maize (corn) during the relevant period with the import quota under the TRQ scheme remaining largely unutilized. Moreover, the actual user condition was done away with in all the public notices issued after the Inter Ministerial Committee meeting held on 29.04.2003 and those remained unchallenged. 40. While concurring with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we decline to entertain the appeal. 41. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Moreover, the actual user condition was done away with in all the public notices issued after the Inter Ministerial Committee meeting held on 29.04.2003 and those remained unchallenged. 40. While concurring with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we decline to entertain the appeal. 41. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed on 04.04.2012 in W.A.M.P. No. 447 of 2012 stands recalled. 42. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed. No costs.