https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35034 Export policy changes made in public interest are within executive competence, and judicial review is limited where no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety is shown. A trader has no vested or accrued right to insist on continuation of an earlier export regime, so a ban on maize exports was not liable to interference on grounds of arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Parity was also denied because exporters permitted under a later notification were not similarly situated: they had reached later stages of the export process, while the petitioner remained at an earlier stage with no cargo examined or under customs custody. en-us Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35034 Export policy changes made in public interest are within executive competence, and judicial review is limited where no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety is shown. A trader has no vested or accrued right to insist on continuation of an earlier export regime, so a ban on maize exports was not liable to interference on grounds of arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Parity was also denied because exporters permitted under a later notification were not similarly situated: they had reached later stages of the export process, while the petitioner remained at an earlier stage with no cargo examined or under customs custody. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35034