https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762723 Where no statutory prohibition, policy restriction, or quantified cap existed for maize/pop corn imports under the governing foreign trade framework, the licensing authority could not lawfully reduce the requested authorisation by reference to processing capacity alone. The Court treated the curtailment as an arbitrary exercise of discretion, inconsistent with the statute and policy, and contrary to fairness, non-arbitrariness, and legitimate expectation. It further held that the restriction unreasonably interfered with the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). The limitation to 2,000 metric tonnes was therefore unsustainable, and the balance quantity was directed to be authorised. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Dec 2024 10:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762723 Where no statutory prohibition, policy restriction, or quantified cap existed for maize/pop corn imports under the governing foreign trade framework, the licensing authority could not lawfully reduce the requested authorisation by reference to processing capacity alone. The Court treated the curtailment as an arbitrary exercise of discretion, inconsistent with the statute and policy, and contrary to fairness, non-arbitrariness, and legitimate expectation. It further held that the restriction unreasonably interfered with the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). The limitation to 2,000 metric tonnes was therefore unsustainable, and the balance quantity was directed to be authorised. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762723