Import restriction on peas upheld as a proportionate public-interest measure under foreign trade law

A statutory import restriction on peas was sustained as a lawful regulatory measure issued in public interest under the foreign trade framework. The Court held that the measure was traceable to the Central Government's power under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, read with the Foreign Trade Policy and the relevant import policy, and that the trade notices were merely clarificatory implementation measures for goods already imported or backed by banking-channel payment before the cut-off date. It further held that the restriction was reasonable and proportionate, did not amount to an unconstitutional retrospective amendment, and did not fail merely because the DGFT issued the notices in implementation of the policy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification restricting import of peas and the subsequent trade notices were ultra vires or arbitrary, whether the Director General of Foreign Trade lacked authority to issue the impugned measures, whether the expression "advance payment" included part payment, and whether the restriction violated Articles 14 and 19(6) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The restriction on import of peas was held to be traceable to the Central Government's power under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, read with the Foreign Trade Policy and the import policy under Chapter 7 of ITC (HS) 2017 Schedule-I. The trade notices were treated as clarificatory and implemented the policy condition concerning goods already imported or backed by payment made through banking channel before the cut-off date. The Court accepted that the import restriction was imposed in public interest to protect domestic farmers and that the policy choice was supported by the doctrine of proportionality. It further held that the impugned measures did not amount to an unconstitutional retrospective amendment and did not warrant interference on the ground that they were issued by the DGFT in the course of statutory implementation.

Conclusion: The challenge to the import restriction and the connected trade notices failed, and the petitioners were not entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The impugned import restrictions were upheld as a lawful and reasonable regulatory measure taken in public interest, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory import restriction issued in public interest under the foreign trade law framework will be sustained if it is a reasonable and proportionate regulatory measure, and a trade notice that merely clarifies the implementation of the notification does not invalidate the notification or add a substantive new restriction.

---