Export canalisation and no vested right to export defeated interim relief in a chrome ore policy challenge.

Economic policy on export canalisation was applied to chrome concentrate/chrome ore, with the Court noting that the petitioner's contracts were entered into after the canalisation notification had taken effect. The Court stated that executive authorities have wide latitude in economic policy matters and that no vested right exists to export a commodity contrary to the policy then in force. The challenge based on ultra vires, promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation was left for final hearing and did not justify interim interference, particularly given the scarcity of the resource and the impact on export policy. Interim relief was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim permission could be granted to export chrome concentrate/chrome ore under contracts entered into after the export canalisation policy had come into force, and whether the policy challenge justified interim relief.

Analysis: The export of chrome concentrate/chrome ore had first been canalized through MMTC and was later fully canalized for 100% export oriented units. The contracts relied upon by the petitioner were entered into after the canalisation notification had already taken effect. The Court reiterated that in matters of economic policy the executive is entitled to a wide latitude, and that there is no vested right to export an item irrespective of the policy prevailing at the relevant time. The challenge to the policy as ultra vires and based on promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation was left for final hearing and could not justify interim interference, particularly where the resource was scarce and the governmental export policy would be affected.

Conclusion: Interim relief was declined and the petitioner was not permitted to make the exports at this stage.

---