delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 32 (a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act (added by 60 Stat. 50, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 32 (a)) authorizes the return in certain circumstances of property vested by the United States during World War II. Under that provision:

“The President, or such officer or agency as he may designate, may return any property or interest vested in or transferred to the Alien Property Custodian (other than any property or interest acquired by the United States prior to December 18, 1941), or the net proceeds thereof, whenever the President or such officer or agency shall determine . .

that the following conditions are met: (1) the claimant was the owner of the property in question prior to its vesting, or is the legal representative or successor in interest of the owner;1 (2) he was not a member of any of several excluded classes, summarized in the margin; 2 (3) the *668property was not used pursuant to a “cloaking” arrangement, whereby the interest of an ineligible person in the property was concealed;3 (4) there is no danger of liability in respect of the property attaching to the Custodian under thé renegotiation statutes;4 and (5) “such return is in the interest of the United States.” 5

The particular provision involved in this case is paragraph 2 (D) of § 32 (a), which makes ineligible citizens of certain enemy countries who were present in those countries after the onset of hostilities, and its first proviso (added by 60 Stat. 930), which exempts from that ineligibility certain persons who were the victims of persecution.6 *669The question for decision is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to review a determination of the Director, Office of Alien Property, sanctioned by the respondent Attorney General, holding this proviso inapplicable to the facts presented by the petitioner's claim.7

Petitioner, a national and resident of Germany at all material times, duly filed with the Attorney General a claim under the § 32 (a) (2) (D) proviso for the return of the proceeds of certain property vested by the respondent’s predecessors in 1942, 1947, and 1948, asserting an interest therein of some $68,500. He alleged that throughout the relevant period he, as an “anti-Nazi,” claimed to have been a discriminated-against political group, had been deprived of full rights of German citizenship, in that he had been denied admission to the practice of law. A Hearing Examiner recommended allowance of the claim, but his recommendation was rejected by the Director on the ground that petitioner was ineligible for relief under the §32(a)(2)(D) proviso.8 The Attorney General *670refused review. Petitioner then sued in the District Court to review the administrative determination, claiming it to have been arbitrary and illegal. The court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, in line with its own prior course of decisions, that judicial review of the administrative disposition was precluded by § 7 (c) of the Trading with the Enemy Act. 106 U. S. App. D. C. 8, 268 F. 2d 584. Because of the importance of the question in the proper administration of the Trading with the Enemy Act we brought the case here. 361 U. S. 874. For reasons given hereafter we affirm the judgment below.

Petitioner’s principal reliance is upon § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act which provides for judicial review of agency action “[ejxeept so far as (1) statutes preclude judicial review or (2) agency action is by law committed to agency discretion.” 60 Stat. 243, 5 U. S. C. § 1009. We find that both such limitations are applicable here.

Section 7 (c) of the Act provides:

“The sole relief and remedy of any person having any claim to any money or other property heretofore or hereafter . . . transferred ... to the Alien Property Custodian . . . shall be that provided by the terms of this Act . . . .” 40 Stat. 1021.

We perceive no basis for petitioner’s contention that § 7 (c) limits only the remedies available to nonenemies under § 9 (a), or for construing § 7 (c), passed in 1918, as not being applicable to § 32, passed in 1946. The language of the section is “all-inclusive,” Becker Steel Co. v. Cummings, 296 U. S. 74, 79, and it speaks to the future *671as well as the past. See also Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 568.

The only express provision in the Trading with the Enemy Act for recourse to the courts by those claiming the return of property vested during World War II is that contained in § 9 (a). That section, however, is applicable only to persons not enemies or allies of enemies as defined in the relevant statutes, and hence is not available to this petitioner, an enemy national.9 While § 9 (c) also entitles certain classes of “enemies” enumerated in § 9 (b) similarly to sue in the courts to recover vested property whose return is authorized under § 9 (b), those sections apply only to World War I vestings. See Feyerabend v. McGrath, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 33, 189 F. 2d 694; cf. Markham v. Cabell, 326 U. S. 404. Although § 32 (a) broadened the categories of those having an enemy status who were eligible for the return of property vested during World War II, unlike § 9 (c) it contains no express provision for judicial relief in respect of such claims.

The question then is whether a right to such relief can fairly be implied, for we shall assume that if such be the case the requirements of § 7 (c) would be satisfied. The terms of § 32 and its legislative history speak strongly against any such implication. The absence in § 32 of any provision for judicial relief respecting “enemy” claims for the return of property vested during World War II stands in sharp contrast to the presence of such a provision in *672§ 9 (c) with iespect to certain enemy claims arising out of World War I vestings. The original version of what ultimately became § 32 did contain a provision for judicial relief comparable to that in § 9 (c), not applicable, however, to property of enemy national-residents, as well as a “sole relief and remedy” provision comparable to that in § 7 (c) — H. R. 4840, § 32 (b), (c), in Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives on H. R. 4840, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1-2 — but the subsequent draft of the bill, substantially in the form as finally enacted in March 1946 (60 Stat. 50), omitted both provisions. See H. R. 3750, in Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 3750, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1-2. While the legislative record contains no explanation of these omissions, the committee hearings on H. R. 3750 and those on subsequent amendments to the Act preclude the view that it was contemplated that persons having an enemy status, still less those who were nationals and residents of enemy countries, should have the right of recourse to the courts with respect to administrative denials of return claims.

Speaking to H. R. 3750 at the initial committee hearing, Mr. Markham, then Alien Property Custodian, stated:

“I want to be sure I make this clear. Supposing a person applies to the Custodian for the return of a property, and for reasons that I deem appropriate under the bill I refuse to return the property. Now, we'will say this person would have to be a technical enemy, a Frenchman. He has no right to compel me to return it under this bill.” Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 3750, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 14; see also pp. 11, 15.

*673And when a few months later, in August 1946, various amendments to the statute were considered and the §32 (a)(2)(D) proviso was added (60 Stat. 930), §32 came under severe criticism because of the absence of provisions for judicial relief in respect of return claims by technical enemies. See Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on S. 2378 and S. 2039, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 57-59, 61, 62-63. The affording of such relief to enemy nationals was, however, at no time suggested. Congress, nevertheless, permitted § 32 to stand without enacting provisions for such judicial relief,10 and later proposed legislation of that character also failed of enactment. See S. 2544, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; S. 34, 83d Cong., 1st Sess.11

*674The conclusion which the history of § 32 impels is confirmed by the text of the section and other provisions of the Act. The absence of any provision for recourse to the courts in connection with § 32 (a) return claims contrasts strongly with the care that Congress took to provide for and limit judicial remedies with respect to other aspects of the section and other provisions of the Act. See, e. g., §§ 32 (d), 32 (e), 32 (f),12 33, 34 (e), 34 (f), 34 (i). It is not of moment that these provisions concerned direct judicial relief, and not court review of denials of administrative relief. The point is that in this Act Congress was advertent to the role of courts, and an absence in any specific area of any kind of provision for judicial participation strongly indicates a legislative purpose that there be no such participation. Beyond this, the permissive terms in which the § 32 return provisions are drawn {ante, p. 667) persuasively indicate that their administration was committed entirely to the discretionary judgment of the Executive branch “without the intervention of the courts.” See Work v. Rives, 267 U. S. 175, 182.

Petitioner, however, relying on McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U. S. 162, contends that even though he might not be entitled to judicial review of an adverse administrative determination on the merits of his claim, he is none*675theless entitled to such review on the issue of his eligibility under the § 32 (a) (2) (D) proviso, the only issue here involved. The Kristensen case, involving eligibility for suspension of deportation under § 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 214, 8 U. S. C. § 1254), bears little resemblance to the situation involved here. See Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 233; Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U. S. 297, 301. The structure of § 32 (a) does not permit of any such distinction in this case. Compare H. R. 4840, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., § 32 (a). Indeed, it is not certain whether petitioner’s theory of partial reviewability would apply only to the proviso with, which he is concerned; to all of paragraph (2), but only to that paragraph; or to paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) as well (seepp. 667-668, and notes 1-4, ante). None of these alternatives is acceptable. As to the first and second, no reason appears why either of these categories should be singled out for special treatment, while the third would make reviewable determinations which involve factors with which only the Executive Branch can satisfactorily deal. See, e. g., Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 3750, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4 (proof of pre-vesting ownership) ; Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 5089, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 37 (proof of “cloaking” arrangements). Beyond that, we think the congressional decision to spell out in some detail certain limitations on the power it was conferring on the Executive was not designed to bestow rights on claimants, arising out of an assertedly too-narrow reading by the Executive of the discretionary power given him. Rather we consider the specifications of paragraphs (1) through (4) as designed to provide guides for the Executive, thereby lessening the administrative burden of decision. See Hearings before a *676Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on S. 2378 and S. 2039, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 19.

We conclude that the Trading with the Enemy Act excludes a judicial remedy in this instance, and that because of this, as well as because of the discretionary character of the administrative action involved, the Administrative Procedure Act, by its own terms (ante, p. 670), is unavailing to the petitioner.13

Petitioner’s other contentions may be dealt with shortly. It is urged that judicial review is in any event available because the complaint, whose allegations as the case comes here must be taken as true, alleges that the administrative action was arbitrary and capricious. However, such conclusory allegations may not be read in isolation from the complaint’s factual allegations and the considerations set forth in the administrative decision upon which denial of this claim was based. See Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, 401. So read, it appears that the complaint should properly be taken as charging no more than that the administrative action was erroneous. This is not a case in which it is charged either that an administrative official has refused or failed to exercise a statutory discretion, or that he has *677acted beyond the scope of his powers, where the availability of judicial review would be attended by quite different considerations than those controlling here. Cf., e. g., Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U. S. 260; Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184.

Finally, petitioner’s reliance on the Declaratory Judgment Act carries him no further. Section 7 (c) of the Trading with the Enemy Act embraces that form of judicial relief as well as others. Additionally, the Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent source of federal jurisdiction, Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U. S. 667, 671; the availability of such relief presupposes the existence of a judicially remediable right. No such right exists here.

We conclude that the Court of Appeals correctly held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this action, and that its judgment must be

Affirmed.

dissenting.

This Court has gone far towards establishing the proposition that preclusion of judicial review of administrative action adjudicating private rights is not lightly to be inferred. See Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184; Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U. S. 579; Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288; American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94. Generalizations are dangerous, but with some safety one can say that judicial review of such administrative action is the rule, and nonreviewability an exception which must be demonstrated.1 To be sure, a clear command of the statute will preclude review; and such a command of the statute may be inferred from its pur*678pose, though Leedom v. Kyne, supra, where I thought nonreviewability proved from the congressional purpose, shows that the Court is far from quick to draw such a conclusion. I cannot agree that the statute here gives any clear direction that this administrative determination that as a matter of law petitioner was ineligible for the exercise of discretionary relief under § 32 (a) should not be reviewable by the courts. Questions as to the scope of that review, of course, are not now before us ; simply whether the power exists at all.

Section 7 (c) of the Act states that the Act’s remedies shall be “[t]he sole relief and remedy” of claimants of vested property, and, to be sure, this language is “all-inclusive,” Becker Steel Co. v. Cummings, 296 U. S. 74, 79. Let us, then, take a close and fully-focused look at what those remedies include, and compare them with what petitioner seeks.

Section 9 (a) of the Act, under which petitioner of course makes no claim, provides a judicial remedy for those who are not enemies and not allies of enemies; they may sue in equity' for the return of their property.2 Sec*679tion 9 (c) gives the same remedy to certain classes of enemies.3 But it is apparent from both these provisions that they contemplate an independent judicial remedy — a suit to return property; not an action to review certain determinations of administrative officers. There is not even a provision that application must be made for admin*680istrative relief before suit is brought. There simply is a requirement for the filing of a notice of claim, which the statute clearly distinguishes from making an application for an administrative return, the latter being optional. Draeger Shipping Co. v. Crowley, 49 F. Supp. 215; Duisberg v. Crowley, 54 F. Supp. 365. See Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 246. Even where the applicant chooses to seek an administrative return, suit may be instituted before the administrative action is completed. The administrative remedy and the judicial remedy are each completely independent of the other; Congress has made this clear even to the extent of putting an “and/or” on the statute books. In no sense, then, can the independent judicial remedy of § 9 be said to be a judicial review of administrative action. It is independent of any administrative action’s being taken. It requires the courts to make a plenary, de novo adjudication of all the controverted issues as they would in any lawsuit between citizens.

Section 32 (a), under which petitioner has applied for relief, on the other hand provides simply for an administrative remedy. That it does, of course, under § 7 (c) precludes the inference of any independent judicial remedy such as § 9 provides. But there is no reason why it should preclude the inference that administrative action taken under it should be subject to judicial review. The courts have developed many principles defining and limiting the quantum of judicial review that may be afforded administrative adjudication. This generally narrow character of judicial review, in contrast to an independent lawsuit directed at the same end as an administrative adjudication, points up the distinction between the independent action under § 9 and what is contended for here. In the latter, the courts cannot order the return of the property. They simply may say that the administrator cannot stand on the ground he gave for not returning it. *681See Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 510 (concurring opinion). Thé former is clearly precluded, but the latter hardly is. The approach to interpretation that cases like Kyne, Harmon and Stark symbolize should indicate that judicial review of the administrative action under § 32 (a) is available. Section 7 (c) is by no means offended by this since this construction recognizes that the sole remedy under § 32 (a) is administrative in nature, but attaches to that administrative remedy the general attribute of administrative remedies in our system — judicial review.

The Court points to the legislative history of § 32 (a) as indicating a contrary conclusion. It says that a judicial remedy was originally provided for in early versions of the bill which added § 32 (a) to the statute, but that the final enactment omitted it. This would be very relevant if what had been originally contained in the bill had been a provision for judicial review of action taken under § 32 (a), such as what petitioner now contends is implicit. But it was not; it was rather a provision for an independent judicial remedy, patterned entirely in the style of § 9.4 *682That it was omitted of course adds another proof that there can be no independent judicial action to get a return under § 32 (a); but it does not tell us that normal judicial review into administrative action under § 32 (a) is to be foreclosed. Mr. Markham’s remarks, quoted by the Court, are of course explicable on the ground that there was no counterpart of § 9’s provision for an independent lawsuit in § 32 (a). In fact, they were spoken in response to a question whether “the individual whose property has been taken or affected can appeal to the courts of the land to have his equity determined.” Hearing before Subcommittee No. 1, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 3750, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 13. The question is a good description of the functions of courts' under § 9. It does not describe the functions of courts exercising a review function of administrative action under § 32 (a). The subsequent legislation which the Court mentions as having failed of passage, S. 2544, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; S. 34, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., was not legislation to provide judicial review, but to afford an independent judicial remedy similar to § 9.5 Thus it is apparent that the alternative that was presented to Congress and rejected clearly enough was not ordinary judicial review of determinations under § 32 (a), but independent judicial action of a sort comparable to § 9’s.

The Court does not demonstrate any policy on which Congress may have been acting and from which it might be inferred that judicial review was impliedly precluded under § 32. Congress clearly precluded independent law*683suits, but there is no demonstration that it acted in pursuance of any purpose which would be broad enough impliedly to negate judicial review of administrative action as well. So there is no reason why the general principle should not apply: “Generally, judicial relief is available to one who has been injured by an act of a government official which is in excess of his express or implied powers.” Harmon v. Brucker, supra, at 581-582.

There is then clearly established jurisdiction to review under the general principles which find expression in § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act; the statute does not “preclude judicial review.” 60 Stat. 243, 5 U. S. C. § 1009. But the Court also holds that, within the meaning of § 10, “agency action is by law committed to agency discretion.” Since want of jurisdiction in the District Court is found, I take it the Court holds that the question, review of which is now sought, which is an issue of statutory construction, is totally and exclusively for the administrative officers to determine — not simply that the courts are to give their determination of this question of law considerable weight. Cf. Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U. S. 111, 130; Gray v. Powell, 314 U. S. 402, 411. Once it is established that the statute does not preclude judicial review, this conclusion seems to me untenable. The issue is a question of law; the construction of a detailed and moderately specified standard. It is not like the ultimate determination that the return be “in the interest of the United States,” §32 (a)(5), which is clearly where the ultimate reservoir of discretion lies under § 32 (a). This determination was never reached. We need not speculate about the breadth of judicial inquiry in judicial review where the administrative decision not to return the property is based on that ground, or is based on one of the other grounds under the statute. The quantum of review can be adjusted to the problem before the courts. Here the determination not *684to return was based on a holding that petitioner did not come within the first proviso to §32 (a)(2)(D). The proviso’s terms were viewed administratively not as guides to an administrative discretion but as legal standards. Under commonplace principles, the determination must stand or fall on that basis. It may be that the novelty of the standards of that proviso (see Subcommittee Hearings, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on S. 2378 and S. 2039, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 19) should teach the courts to give considerable weight to the administrative construction of the law. But that is not to say, as the Court does, that it is so much a matter of administrative discretion as to preclude judicial review.6 To my mind, McOr.ath v. Kristensen, 340 U. S. 162, is squarely in point. There there was a statute which bristled with discretion as much as this one. But where the administrative decision under it was not rendered on the basis for the exercise of discretion the statute provided, but as a matter of law, judicial review was available. We retreat from established principles of administrative law when we say it is unavailable here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed, and the order of the District Court declining to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction should be affirmed.