Import restrictions on peas upheld as valid trade policy; no promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, or vested right found.

Import restrictions on peas issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 were upheld as a policy measure. The Court held that judicial review in economic and trade policy is limited and interference is justified only if the measure is arbitrary, irrational or contrary to public interest. It found the Government acted after inter-ministerial consultation to protect domestic farmers and provided transitional arrangements for pre-existing imports and advance payments. The brief withdrawal of the earlier notification was treated as a technical step, so the later reimposition was not retrospective and did not create promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation or enforceable vested rights. Importability depended on the date of import, and clearance of goods on the basis of prior contracts was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notifications restricting import of peas were liable to be struck down on the grounds of arbitrariness, retrospectivity, promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation or violation of vested rights, and whether the petitioners could claim clearance of the imported goods on the basis of prior contracts or the brief withdrawal of the restriction.

Analysis: The impugned notifications were issued under section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 as a policy measure regulating imports of peas. The Court held that in economic and trade policy matters the scope of judicial review is limited and interference is warranted only where the decision is arbitrary, irrational or contrary to public interest. The record showed that the Government had acted after inter-ministerial consultation to protect domestic farmers and had also put in place transitional arrangements through the earlier notifications and trade notices so that pre-existing imports and advance payments were not ignored. The withdrawal of the earlier notification on 29.08.2018 was treated as a technical step taken to comply with the Madras High Court order and not as a promise that imports would remain free. The later reimposition of restriction on 30.08.2018 was therefore not held to be retrospective, nor did it create an enforceable promise or legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioners. The Court also held that the relevant date for importability was the date of import and not merely the date of contract.

Conclusion: The challenge to the import-restriction notifications failed; the notifications were upheld and the petitioners were not entitled to clearance of the goods on the basis claimed.

---