CBN cannot be held liable for non-registration of import contracts not reflected on the foreign authority's digital portal.

The Appellants are poppy seed importers who entered into sales contracts with Turkish exporters.

Under a 2018 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between India and Turkey, poppy seed imports are regulated by a "Country Cap" (annual quota).

The process requires Turkish exporters to register contracts on an Online System Portal maintained by the Turkish Grain Board (TMO).

The Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN) in India then registers these contracts based on details reflected on the TMO portal to issue import permits.

For the 2019-20 crop year, a cap of 18,000 MT was fixed.

Although the Appellants registered their contracts with the TMO, these details were never "uploaded" or reflected on the portal accessible to the CBN because the 18,000 MT cap had already been exhausted by earlier applicants.

The Appellants challenged the non-registration of their contracts and the fixation of the Country Cap before a Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petitions.

The Appellants then filed these Letters Patent Appeals.

1. Whether the Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN) is legally obligated to register import contracts that are registered with the TMO but not reflected/uploaded on the online portal accessible to India.

2. Whether the CBN has a duty to intervene or supervise the registration/uploading procedure adopted by a foreign entity (TMO) to ensure fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. Whether the "effects doctrine" permits Indian courts to exercise jurisdiction over the procedural conduct of a foreign sovereign body like the TMO.

The Court applied the principles of Article 14 (Equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (Freedom of Trade) of the Constitution, emphasizing that while state largesse must be distributed fairly.

Economic policy decisions regarding imports are generally immune from judicial interference unless proved to be MD (manifestly arbitrary).

The Court relied on *Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Scope Sales (P) Ltd.* regarding the limited scope of intra-court appeals.

It applied the "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation" as defined in *Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation*, noting that an expectation must be founded on a legal right or established procedure, not mere hope.

Finally, it distinguished the "effects doctrine" from *Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Manufacturers' Association*, which applies only where foreign conduct results in restrictive trade practices or market distortion in India.

The Court found that under Article III of the MOU and the 2019 Guidelines, the CBN's role is purely consequential and dependent upon the TMO's portal updates.

Since the Appellants' contracts were never reflected on the portal, the CBN had no "details" to verify or register; thus, no fault or arbitrariness could be attributed to the Indian authorities.

The Court rejected the argument that "registration" with TMO should automatically lead to "uploading," noting that the MOU and subsequent communications established a clear procedural distinction between the two stages.

Regarding the Appellants’ claim of a violation of Article 14, the Court held that the CBN has no legal duty to monitor the TMO’s internal verification layers or supervise a foreign sovereign entity's compliance with the cap.

The "effects doctrine" was held inapplicable because the exhaustion of a negotiated import quota does not constitute a distortion of domestic competition.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's view that it cannot sit in appeal over the decisions or procedures of the TMO in Turkey.

There was no breach of legal duty or constitutional principles by the Respondents.

The final order dismissed all connected matters with no order as to costs.