Export restriction challenge must be decided before granting export permission for non-basmati white rice shipments.

Export permission could not be granted for the full contracted quantity of non-basmati white rice while the challenge to the export restriction notification remained undecided. The notification, issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, continued to operate unless it was first sustained or invalidated. Because the writ relief was granted after the challenge to the notification was withdrawn and without adjudicating its validity, the appellate court held that final substantive relief was premature. The permission order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order permitting export of the full quantity of non-basmati white rice could stand when the challenge to the export prohibition notification was not adjudicated and the notification was neither upheld nor set aside.

Analysis: The export restriction notification was issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, with limited exceptions for specified categories of consignments. The appellate court noted that the learned single Judge granted permission to export the entire contracted quantity while the challenge to the notification itself was withdrawn after obtaining interim relief. In such a situation, the court held that relief permitting export could not be granted without first deciding the validity of the notification, because the operative notification remained in force and the writ court had to either sustain or invalidate it before granting final substantive relief.

Conclusion: The order permitting export was unsustainable and was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration.

---