Minimum Import Price for areca nut upheld as a lawful import restriction under foreign trade law and trade frameworks.

The Madras HC treated the Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut as a lawful import regulation under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, because the Central Government may prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate imports by notification in the Official Gazette and amend foreign trade policy accordingly. It also accepted that a partial restriction can operate as a prohibition to that extent. The Court further held that the measure remained applicable despite claims based on the ASEAN arrangement and Notification No. 46/2011, since the WTO and ASEAN framework did not confer immunity from such agricultural trade restrictions. The writ petition therefore failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned notification fixing a Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut was within the power of the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. (ii) Whether the notification could be applied to imports claimed under the ASEAN arrangement and Notification No. 46/2011.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned notification fixing a Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut was within the power of the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

Analysis: Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 authorises the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate imports by order published in the Official Gazette. Section 5 of the same Act enables the Government to formulate and amend the foreign trade policy. On that basis, the notification was treated as a valid exercise of statutory power. The Court also relied on the understanding that import restrictions may be imposed to protect domestic agriculture and that a partial restriction can amount to a prohibition to that extent.

Conclusion: The impugned notification was held to be within statutory power and valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification could be applied to imports claimed under the ASEAN arrangement and Notification No. 46/2011.

Analysis: Article 8 of the ASEAN Agreement permits non-tariff measures where consistent with WTO rights and obligations. Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture restricts certain measures, but Article 5 permits recourse to special safeguard provisions for agricultural products. The Court held that the Minimum Import Price operated as a permissible protective measure within that framework and that Notification No. 46/2011 did not create an immunity from the impugned restriction. The notification was held to bind all importers, including the petitioner.

Conclusion: The claimed exemption was rejected and the notification was held applicable to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on merits because the import restriction was found to be a lawful trade measure and applicable to the petitioner notwithstanding the cited import notification and international arrangements.

Ratio Decidendi: The Central Government may lawfully regulate imports by notification under the foreign trade statute, and a Minimum Import Price imposed as a trade restriction for agricultural goods can operate against all importers when it is consistent with the WTO and ASEAN framework.

---