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’s judgment dated 14.07.2020 which dismissed their writ petitions.

Under a 2018 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between India and Turkey, the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) maintains an online portal to register sales contracts, which the Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN) then verifies to issue import permits.

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 not "uploaded" or reflected on the portal accessible to the CBN because the Country Cap had already been exhausted by other importers.

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

1. Whether the CBN is legally obligated to register sales contracts that are not reflected on the TMO’s online portal, despite being registered with the TMO.

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

3. Whether the "effects doctrine" permits Indian courts to exercise jurisdiction over the procedural conduct of a foreign entity (TMO) situated in Turkey.

The court applied the principle that intra-court appellate interference is limited to cases of demonstrable error or perversity, as held in *Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Scope Sales (P) Ltd.*

Regarding "legitimate expectation," the court relied on *Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation*, which clarifies that an expectation must be founded on a legal right or established procedure, not mere hope.

The "effects doctrine," as per *Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Manufacturers' Association*, was noted to apply only where foreign conduct results in restrictive trade practices affecting domestic competition.

The court also emphasized that economic policy decisions, such as import regulations, enjoy a presumption of public interest and warrant minimal judicial interference unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary.

The Court analyzed Article III of the MOU and the 25.06.2019 Guidelines, determining that the CBN’s role is purely consequential and contingent upon the TMO uploading contract details to the shared portal.

Since the Appellants’ contracts were never reflected on the portal due to the exhausted Country Cap, the CBN had no data to verify or register.

The Court rejected the argument that "registration" and "uploading" were identical, citing a communication dated 06.09.2019 that established them as distinct procedural steps.

The Court further reasoned that it cannot sit in appeal over the TMO, a foreign sovereign entity, nor can it compel the CBN to intervene in the TMO’s internal registration layers, as such interference would overstep the negotiated bilateral framework.

No evidence of "pick-and-choose" behavior by the CBN was found because the Appellants were not situated similarly to those whose contracts were actually reflected on the portal.

It held that the CBN cannot be faulted for refusing registration when the mandatory prerequisite—reflection of the contract on the TMO portal—was not met.

The Court affirmed that the Appellants had no "legitimate expectation" to import beyond the Country Cap or through a mechanism not contemplated by the MOU.

The "effects doctrine" was held inapplicable as no restrictive trade practice was established.

The common judgment of the Single Judge was upheld as plausible and legally sound.