<?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>Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut upheld as a lawful non-tariff safeguard under trade law framework.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98733</link>
    <description>Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate imports by Gazette order, and section 5 permits amendment of foreign trade policy. On that basis, a notification fixing a Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut was within statutory competence. The notification was also treated as consistent with the ASEAN and WTO framework because it operated as a non-tariff safeguard for agricultural products, fixed only a trigger price, and did not impose a quantitative import cap. Importers could not avoid the MIP condition by relying on nil-duty eligibility under Notification No. 46/2011.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut upheld as a lawful non-tariff safeguard under trade law framework.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98733</link>
      <description>Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate imports by Gazette order, and section 5 permits amendment of foreign trade policy. On that basis, a notification fixing a Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut was within statutory competence. The notification was also treated as consistent with the ASEAN and WTO framework because it operated as a non-tariff safeguard for agricultural products, fixed only a trigger price, and did not impose a quantitative import cap. Importers could not avoid the MIP condition by relying on nil-duty eligibility under Notification No. 46/2011.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>