<?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 (8) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756328</link>
    <description>Export restrictions on non-basmati white rice were treated as a valid public-interest amendment under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, but could operate only prospectively. Exporters holding pre-notification irrevocable letters of credit had accrued contractual rights that could not be defeated by the later prohibition, so their exports remained protected. Differential treatment between exporters ready to ship and those still procuring goods had a rational nexus to the restriction&#039;s objective and did not violate Article 14. Legitimate expectation was not absolute and yielded to overriding public interest; no prior notice was required for the policy change. The writ petitions were disposed of with prospective application of the restriction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2024 12:35:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756328</link>
      <description>Export restrictions on non-basmati white rice were treated as a valid public-interest amendment under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, but could operate only prospectively. Exporters holding pre-notification irrevocable letters of credit had accrued contractual rights that could not be defeated by the later prohibition, so their exports remained protected. Differential treatment between exporters ready to ship and those still procuring goods had a rational nexus to the restriction&#039;s objective and did not violate Article 14. Legitimate expectation was not absolute and yielded to overriding public interest; no prior notice was required for the policy change. The writ petitions were disposed of with prospective application of the restriction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>