CBN is not liable for non-registration of import contracts not reflected on the foreign authority's portal.

The Appellants, importers of poppy seeds, challenged a Single Judge judgment dated 14.07.2020 which dismissed their writ petitions

In 2018, India and Turkey signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to regulate poppy seed imports, requiring Turkish exporters to register sales contracts on an Online System Portal maintained by the Turkish Grain Board (TMO)

Under the MOU and Guidelines dated 25.06.2019, the Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN) would register these contracts in India only after verifying them on the TMO portal

For the 2019-20 crop year, a Country Cap of 18,000 MT was fixed

Although the Appellants registered their contracts with the TMO, these were never "uploaded" to the portal accessible by the CBN because the 18,000 MT cap had already been exhausted by other importers

The Appellants alleged the process was arbitrary and discriminatory

Whether the CBN can be held liable under the MOU and Guidelines for the non-registration of sales contracts that were not reflected/uploaded on the TMO-maintained portal

Whether the CBN had an independent legal obligation to intervene or supervise the TMO’s registration process to ensure a fair distribution mechanism under Article 14 of the Constitution

The court applied the contractual and regulatory framework established by the MOU (Article III) and the Guidelines (Clause III), which dictate that the portal is maintained exclusively by the TMO and the CBN’s role is limited to verifying existing entries

It relied on the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, as interpreted in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, noting that expectations must be founded on law or established procedure, not merely hope

The court also applied the principle of Appellate Restraint from Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Scope Sales (P) Ltd., which limits interference to judgments that are demonstrably erroneous or perverse

Finally, it addressed the "Effects Doctrine" from Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Manufacturers' Association, regarding jurisdiction over foreign conduct affecting domestic markets

The Court observed that under Article III(1) and (5) of the MOU, the TMO holds the exclusive mandate to maintain the portal and "uploading" is a distinct procedural step following registration

Since the TMO confirmed via letter (30.10.2019) that the Appellants' contracts were not uploaded due to the exhaustion of the Country Cap, the CBN had no data to verify or act upon

The Court reasoned that the CBN's role is "purely consequential" and dependent on TMO’s actions

It rejected the Article 14 challenge, holding that a writ court cannot scrutinize the internal procedures of a foreign sovereign entity (TMO) or force the CBN to overstep the negotiated bilateral framework

The Court found no evidence of "pick-and-choose" behavior by the CBN, as it only processed what was visible on the system

The Court affirmed that the determination of a Country Cap is a matter of economic policy not subject to judicial interference unless sparked by mala fides

The Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed, and the Single Judge’s findings were upheld as a plausible interpretation of the law