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

The Appellants, Indian importers of poppy seeds, challenged a Single Judge judgment dated 14.07.2020 which upheld the Central Bureau of Narcotics’ (CBN) refusal to register their sales contracts for imports from Turkey for the crop year 2019-20.

Under a 2018 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between India and Turkey, the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) maintains an online portal where Turkish exporters register contracts.

The CBN then verifies these registrations on the portal to issue import permits.

Although the Appellants obtained registration numbers from the TMO, their contracts were never "uploaded" to the portal accessible by the CBN because the "Country Cap" (18,000 MT) had already been exhausted by other importers.

The Appellants alleged the process was arbitrary, non-transparent, and violated their right to equal opportunity.

1. Whether the CBN is legally obligated to register an import contract that is not reflected or uploaded on the TMO’s online portal.

2. Whether the non-registration of the Appellants' contracts by the CBN was manifest arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

3. Whether the CBN had a duty to intervene or supervise the TMO's internal registration and uploading process to ensure fairness.

The court applied Article III of the MOU and the Guidelines dated 25.06.2019, which establish that the CBN's role is limited to verifying registrations via the TMO-maintained portal.

It relied on Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Scope Sales (P) Ltd. regarding the limited scope of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, which requires a judgment to be "demonstrably erroneous" for interference.

Regarding "legitimate expectation," the court applied Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, holding that an expectation must be founded on law or established procedure rather than mere hope.

It further applied the "effects doctrine" from Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Manufacturers' Association, noting it only applies where foreign conduct causes a restrictive trade practice or distorts domestic competition.

The Court found that under the MOU, the TMO holds exclusive responsibility for maintaining the portal and ensuring registrations do not exceed the Country Cap.

The CBN’s duty is purely consequential; it can only register contracts once they are "uploaded" and visible on the portal.

The Court rejected the Appellants' argument that registration and uploading are synonymous, citing correspondence showing that "uploading" is a distinct, subsequent step controlled by the TMO.

Since the Appellants’ contracts were never reflected on the portal due to the exhausted cap, the CBN committed no breach of duty.

The Court determined that the CBN has no legal mandate to supervise the TMO (a foreign entity) or sit in appeal over the TMO's internal verification layers.

Furthermore, the Appellants failed to prove any restrictive trade practice to invoke the "effects doctrine" or any violation of Article 14, as the CBN processed all contracts that were actually visible on the system without favor.

The Court affirmed that the Single Judge’s view was plausible and not perverse.

It held that the Appellants had no "legitimate expectation" of registration that superseded the negotiated sovereign framework of the MOU.

No violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) was established as the CBN acted strictly within the procedural guidelines.

All pending applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.