Minimum import price on roasted areca nut upheld as valid import regulation protecting domestic agriculture.

A minimum import price on roasted areca nut was upheld as a valid exercise of import-regulation power under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The measure was treated as a safeguard intended to protect domestic agriculture, and the Court accepted that it was consistent with the relevant WTO and ASEAN framework, including the limited safeguards recognised for agricultural products. The notification applied to all importers, and no exemption was recognised merely because the goods were covered by an earlier customs notification. The writ challenge therefore failed and the restriction remained applicable to the petitioner's imports.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned minimum import price notification could be applied to roasted areca nut imports despite the prior customs notification and the petitioner's reliance on ASEAN and WTO obligations.

Analysis: The statutory framework under Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or regulate imports by order, and Section 5 authorises formulation of foreign trade policy. The impugned notification was issued in exercise of that power. Under the ASEAN framework, non-tariff measures are not barred where they are consistent with WTO rights and obligations. Under the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 4 prohibits certain measures, but Article 5 permits special safeguard recourse for agricultural products in the manner recognised by the agreement. The minimum import price fixed for roasted areca nut was treated as a safeguard measure aimed at protecting local agriculture, and the Court held that the notification operated for all importers without creating an exemption for imports under the earlier customs notification.

Conclusion: The impugned notification was held to be valid and applicable to the petitioner's imports.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the challenge to the minimum import price restriction was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A minimum import price imposed under the foreign trade power for protection of domestic agriculture is valid if it falls within the scope of the statutory import-regulation power and the permissible safeguards under the relevant international trade framework, and it binds all importers absent a legally recognised exemption.

---