Promissory estoppel cannot defeat statutory export controls where policy changes serve overriding public interest and no firm commitment exists.

Promissory estoppel could not restrain the Government from revising export policy or statutory export control orders made under legislative power, especially where the measures were adopted in public interest to conserve silver stocks. The doctrine does not operate against statute or legislative action, so the policy change was upheld. The claimed contracts also did not qualify as firm pre-control commitments under the import-export handbook, because they were flexible and repeatedly extended, and the handbook itself did not create an enforceable right to an export licence or permission to export. As a result, no enforceable export entitlement arose under the guidelines.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether promissory estoppel could be invoked to prevent the Government from changing the export policy and the export control orders issued under statutory power; (ii) whether the petitioners' contracts amounted to protected pre-control commitments under the relevant import-export handbook provisions.

Issue (i): whether promissory estoppel could be invoked to prevent the Government from changing the export policy and the export control orders issued under statutory power.

Analysis: The export control orders were made in exercise of statutory power under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and were legislative in character. Promissory estoppel cannot operate against statute or legislative action. The policy and accompanying guidelines were also expressly subject to change in public interest, and the Government showed that the restrictions were introduced to conserve silver stocks and protect the national interest. In such a situation, the State was entitled to alter its policy and the doctrine could not be used to freeze the exercise of statutory power.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed against the statutory export control measures and the change in policy was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioners' contracts amounted to protected pre-control commitments under the relevant import-export handbook provisions.

Analysis: The claimed contracts were not found to be firm or irrevocable commitments of the kind contemplated by the handbook provisions. The arrangements had been repeatedly extended and altered, showing that they were flexible and not binding pre-control commitments. Further, the handbook itself stated that the guidelines did not confer any enforceable right to an export licence or permission to export.

Conclusion: The petitioners' contracts were not protected pre-control commitments and no enforceable right to export arose under the handbook.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were rejected because neither promissory estoppel nor the handbook provisions entitled the petitioners to override the revised export control policy.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be enforced against legislative or statutory action, and it yields where the Government establishes that a policy change is required in overriding public interest; administrative guidelines create no enforceable right unless the alleged commitment is firm and legally protected.

---