Clarificatory trade notice on restricted imports upheld where it only explained eligibility under the original policy framework.

A clarificatory trade notice on restricted yellow pea imports was treated as consistent with the original notification and not as an impermissible amendment, because it only explained how the advance-payment eligibility condition operated within the existing policy framework. The brief withdrawal of the restriction on 29.08.2018, followed by immediate reimposition, did not create an entitlement to clearance where the petitioner had not made the imports during any operative window or shown that the goods were already in transit or otherwise covered by the protected category. The policy restrictions and the clarification were therefore upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the trade notice dated 18.05.2018 impermissibly amended the notification dated 25.04.2018 by limiting eligibility to cases supported by 100% advance payment before 25.04.2018; (ii) Whether the brief withdrawal of the restriction on 29.08.2018 and its reimposition on 30.08.2018 entitled the petitioner to clearance of the proposed imports.

Issue (i): Whether the trade notice dated 18.05.2018 impermissibly amended the notification dated 25.04.2018 by limiting eligibility to cases supported by 100% advance payment before 25.04.2018.

Analysis: The original import policy changed yellow peas from the free category to the restricted category for a limited period and allowed a defined quantity of imports, including shipments already arrived and shipments backed by irrevocable commercial letter of credit or advance payment made through banking channels before 25.04.2018. The subsequent trade notice merely clarified how the expression relating to advance payment was to operate and did not alter the substantive policy. The insistence on 100% advance payment was treated as a clarification of the category of imports that could be said to have been already covered by the policy, not as a fresh restriction beyond the notification.

Conclusion: The challenge to the trade notice failed and the clarification was held to be valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the brief withdrawal of the restriction on 29.08.2018 and its reimposition on 30.08.2018 entitled the petitioner to clearance of the proposed imports.

Analysis: The restriction was imposed to regulate imports of yellow peas and protect the local farming sector, and the temporary withdrawal was only a short-lived administrative event followed by immediate reimposition. The petitioner had not made the imports during any operative window in which the goods could claim clearance, and no material showed that the goods were already in transit or otherwise entitled to be treated as completed imports within the protected category.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to clearance on the basis of the one-day withdrawal.

Final Conclusion: The policy measures were upheld as valid clarifications and regulatory restrictions, and the petitioner's claims to import clearance were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarificatory trade notice that explains the manner of applying a restricted import notification does not amount to an impermissible amendment where it remains consistent with the original policy framework and the eligibility condition is confined to the category of imports already covered by that framework.

---