Import restriction clarification upheld as valid, but only goods already cleared were protected; remaining quantity could not be forced through.

A later trade notice on yellow peas was treated as clarificatory of the 25.04.2018 import restriction and not as a fresh amendment, because it only explained how the expression "already imported" and advance payments were to operate. The court further held that imports already completed under interim protection could be preserved, but the petitioners could not compel clearance of the remaining unarrived quantity, as it was not shown to have been sufficiently committed to transit before the restriction took effect. Relief was therefore confined to goods already cleared, and the challenge failed for the balance quantity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the trade notice dated 18.05.2018 was merely clarificatory and did not alter the import policy notification dated 25.04.2018; (ii) Whether import contracts backed by part advance payment made before 25.04.2018 were entitled to registration and clearance, and whether the remaining unarrived quantity could still be protected.

Issue (i): Whether the trade notice dated 18.05.2018 was merely clarificatory and did not alter the import policy notification dated 25.04.2018.

Analysis: The import policy was changed from free to restricted for yellow peas by the notification dated 25.04.2018, with a limited window and a defined category of "already imported" shipments. The subsequent trade notice only explained the manner in which the expression "already imported" was to operate, and specifically clarified the treatment of advance payments. It did not substitute the original notification or add a new restriction beyond the policy already introduced.

Conclusion: The trade notice was held to be clarificatory and valid, not an independent amendment to the original notification.

Issue (ii): Whether import contracts backed by part advance payment made before 25.04.2018 were entitled to registration and clearance, and whether the remaining unarrived quantity could still be protected.

Analysis: The Court read the original notification as covering shipments already arrived and those backed by irrevocable commercial letters of credit or advance payment through banking channel, but not as automatically including part advance payment in every case. The later clarification of 05.07.2018 allowed imports proportionate to part advance payment, yet the Court found that in the present cases the imports already cleared under interim orders could not be disturbed, while the remaining quantity had not arrived and there was no sufficient material to show that it had been put in transit before cancellation of registration.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to insist on clearance of the remaining unarrived quantity, though imports already completed were protected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the limited extent of preserving imports already completed, while the substantive claim for clearance of the remaining quantity failed and the petitions stood disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent trade notice may clarify an earlier import restriction notification, but it cannot enlarge the original exemption beyond its terms; eligibility must be tested on the basis of the notification as clarified and on the factual position existing before the restriction took effect.

---