https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381615 Import restrictions on peas issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 were upheld as a policy measure. The Court held that judicial review in economic and trade policy is limited and interference is justified only if the measure is arbitrary, irrational or contrary to public interest. It found the Government acted after inter-ministerial consultation to protect domestic farmers and provided transitional arrangements for pre-existing imports and advance payments. The brief withdrawal of the earlier notification was treated as a technical step, so the later reimposition was not retrospective and did not create promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation or enforceable vested rights. Importability depended on the date of import, and clearance of goods on the basis of prior contracts was refused. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jan 2020 14:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381615 Import restrictions on peas issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 were upheld as a policy measure. The Court held that judicial review in economic and trade policy is limited and interference is justified only if the measure is arbitrary, irrational or contrary to public interest. It found the Government acted after inter-ministerial consultation to protect domestic farmers and provided transitional arrangements for pre-existing imports and advance payments. The brief withdrawal of the earlier notification was treated as a technical step, so the later reimposition was not retrospective and did not create promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation or enforceable vested rights. Importability depended on the date of import, and clearance of goods on the basis of prior contracts was refused. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381615