Retrospective import restriction cannot defeat a completed pre-notice transaction protected under transitional foreign trade policy rules.

A later import restriction could not be applied retrospectively to defeat a pre-notice vanaspati oil import from Sri Lanka where the importer had already contracted and paid in full before the public notice. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 authorises import control, but the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009 also recognises transitional protection for imports already placed within the protected period. On the stated facts, the completed transaction was treated consistently with other protected imports, including those backed by irrevocable letters of credit, and duty-free benefit could not be denied on the basis of the later restriction.

---

---

Issues: Whether an import transaction completed before the issuance of the impugned public notice could be subjected to the amended import restriction so as to deny duty-free benefit for vanaspati oil imported from Sri Lanka.

Analysis: The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to regulate imports and to formulate and amend export-import policy. The Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009 also contains transitional protection in paragraph 1A.5, under which an import permitted freely before a later restriction is ordinarily not to be defeated if shipment is made within the protected period. The respondents themselves treated imports covered by irrevocable letters of credit opened before the public notice as entitled to the benefit. On the undisputed facts, the petitioner had entered into the contract and remitted the full payment in advance before the impugned public notice, and the subsequent restrictive arrangement could not be applied retrospectively to defeat that completed transaction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the same benefit as similarly placed importers and could not be denied duty-free import of vanaspati oil from Sri Lanka on the basis of the impugned public notice.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned restriction was held inapplicable to the petitioner's pre-notice import transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent import restriction cannot be applied retrospectively to an import transaction already completed or protected under the policy's transitional arrangement, where the importer had acted before the restrictive notice in a manner equivalent to the protected class of transactions.

---