Court upholds pea import restrictions, affirms Special Import Licence requirement. Policy decisions lawful.

The court upheld the validity of Notifications No. 32/2015-2020 and No. 37/2015-2020 imposing restrictions on pea imports, stating they were in the public interest to protect domestic farmers. It affirmed the requirement for a Special Import Licence and ruled that transitional provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy did not apply as the import restriction was continuous. The court emphasized that policy decisions were lawful under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and dismissed the writ petition challenging the notifications.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Notifications No. 32/2015-2020 and No. 37/2015-2020.
2. Requirement of Special Import Licence (SIL) for clearance of imported goods.
3. Applicability of transitional provisions under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP).
4. Impact of withdrawal and reissuance of notifications on the import policy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Notifications No. 32/2015-2020 and No. 37/2015-2020:
The petitioners challenged the legality of Notifications No. 32/2015-2020 dated 30.08.2018 and No. 37/2015-2020 dated 28.09.2018, which imposed and extended restrictions on the import of peas. The respondents argued that these notifications were policy decisions made in public interest to safeguard the interests of domestic farmers, as large imports of peas were adversely impacting local prices. The court held that these notifications were valid as they were issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and were aimed at balancing the interests of domestic producers and importers.

2. Requirement of Special Import Licence (SIL) for Clearance of Imported Goods:
The petitioners contended that they were orally informed that clearance of their imported goods would only be allowed upon producing a Special Import Licence (SIL). The respondents maintained that the import of peas was restricted under various notifications, and without the SIL, the import was impermissible. The court upheld the respondents' stance, stating that the requirement for SIL was in line with the restrictions imposed by the notifications.

3. Applicability of Transitional Provisions under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP):
The petitioners argued that there was no restriction on the import of peas from 1st July 2018 to 29th August 2018, and therefore, their import should be allowed under the transitional provisions of the FTP. They relied on paragraph 1.05(b) of the FTP, which permits the import of restricted goods if the shipment is made before the imposition of such restriction. The court noted that the bill of lading for the petitioners' goods was dated 28th August 2018, and the restriction was imposed on 30th August 2018. However, the court clarified that the restriction was in place during the period in question due to the notifications, and the transitional provisions did not apply as the restriction was already effective.

4. Impact of Withdrawal and Reissuance of Notifications on the Import Policy:
The petitioners claimed that the withdrawal of Notification No. 15/2015-2020 on 29th August 2018 meant there was no restriction on the import of peas until 30th August 2018. The court examined the sequence of notifications and concluded that the restriction on the import of peas was continuous. The withdrawal of the notification on 29th August 2018 did not nullify the restriction, as it was promptly reinstated by Notification No. 32/2015-2020 on 30th August 2018. The court rejected the petitioners' argument, stating that the restriction was effective throughout the period in question.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the notifications and the requirement for a Special Import Licence. It clarified that the transitional provisions of the FTP did not apply, as the restriction on the import of peas was continuous and effective during the relevant period. The court emphasized that the policy decisions were made in public interest to protect domestic farmers and were within the legal framework provided by the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

---