Promissory estoppel protects pre-existing import licences from retrospective curtailment by later trade notifications.

Existing import entitlements under a value based licence could not be retrospectively curtailed by later notifications without justification in public interest. The Court held that executive or subordinate legislative action affecting trade remains subject to judicial review and must satisfy the reasonableness requirement under Article 19(6). As the licencee had altered position by undertaking export obligations and incurring expenditure on the faith of the licence, and no material was shown to justify the retrospective change, promissory estoppel applied on the facts. The notifications therefore could not defeat the pre-existing licence entitlement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned notifications altering the import treatment of the goods covered by the existing value based licence could be enforced against the petitioner, and whether they were invalid as an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to trade and contrary to promissory estoppel.

Analysis: The licence had been issued before the goods were brought into the sensitive list, and the petitioner had altered his position by undertaking export obligations and incurring expenditure on the basis of the licence. The Court held that a claim of public interest does not immunise executive or subordinate legislative action from judicial review, and that restrictions affecting trade under Article 19(1)(g) must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 19(6). In the absence of material placed by the respondents to justify the retrospective impact of the notifications or to show that public interest required the change, the State could not resile from the promise implicit in the licence. The petitioner's reliance on promissory estoppel was therefore accepted on the facts.

Conclusion: The notifications could not be applied to defeat the petitioner's pre-existing licence, and the petitioner was entitled to import the goods covered by that licence without reference to the subsequent additions to the sensitive list.

Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate legislative or executive restrictions affecting an existing trade entitlement are enforceable only if the State establishes, on material before the Court, that the restriction is reasonable and justified by public interest; where a licencee has altered position on the faith of the licence, promissory estoppel may prevent retrospective curtailment of that entitlement.

---