<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (5) TMI 835 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752782</link>
    <description>Export-policy amendments may be issued by the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 through a Gazette notification signed by the Director General of Foreign Trade acting as Ex-Officio Additional Secretary. The conversion of non-basmati rice exports from free to prohibited was therefore valid in principle. However, excluding existing export commitments from the transitional protection under paragraph 1.05 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 lacked recorded reasons or verifiable supporting material. That exclusion was arbitrary under Article 14, frustrated legitimate expectation, and required justification as a restriction on trade under Article 19(1)(g). Transitional protection remained available where paragraph 1.05 conditions were met.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2026 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 835 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752782</link>
      <description>Export-policy amendments may be issued by the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 through a Gazette notification signed by the Director General of Foreign Trade acting as Ex-Officio Additional Secretary. The conversion of non-basmati rice exports from free to prohibited was therefore valid in principle. However, excluding existing export commitments from the transitional protection under paragraph 1.05 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 lacked recorded reasons or verifiable supporting material. That exclusion was arbitrary under Article 14, frustrated legitimate expectation, and required justification as a restriction on trade under Article 19(1)(g). Transitional protection remained available where paragraph 1.05 conditions were met.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>