We accordingly hold that the Notification issued under
Section 3 of the Act acquires the force of law only upon its
publication in the Official Gazette. The expression ‘date of this
Notification’ must necessarily mean the date of such publication.(Para 3)
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
VIRAJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Author: ALOK ARADHE, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 80
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from Common Order and Judgment
dated 21.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi, in a batch
of writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants
were dismissed. By the aforesaid order and judgment, the High
2
Court dismissed the challenge laid by the appellants to a
Notification issued by the Central Government imposing a
Minimum Import Price on certain steel products. The controversy
lies in narrow compass and turns primarily on the interpretation
of the expression ‘date of this Notification’ occurring in para 2 of
Notification No.38/2015-2020 (Notification), issued under the
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (Act).
THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The appellants are private limited companies incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and are engaged in the import
and trading of mild steel items such as Hot Rolled Coils, Cold
Rolled Coils, Hot Rolled Steel Plates and Pre Painted Steel Coils
etc. Admittedly, prior to February, 2016, the said items were
freely importable and fell under Chapter -72 of the Indian Trade
Clarification (Harmonized System), 2012 (hereinafter, referred to
as ‘ITC-HS’), Schedule-I of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020
(FTP).
4. Between 29.01.2016 and 04.02.2016, the appellants
entered into firm sale contracts with exporters from China and
South Korea. The appellants on 05.02.2016 opened irrevocable
letters of credit in favour of foreign suppliers.
3
5. On the same date i.e. 05.02.2016, the Directorate General of
Foreign Trade (DGFT), uploaded Notification on its website,
introducing Minimum Import Price (MIP) for specified steel
products. The uploaded document itself contained an
endorsement ‘To be published in the Official Gazette of India’.
Admittedly, the Notification was published in the Official Gazette
on 11.02.2016.
6. Anticipating restriction, the appellants, on 08.02.2016,
applied for registration of their Letters of Credit under
transitional protection contemplated by para 1.05(b) of the FTP.
7. The appellants thereafter approached the High Court,
contending that the Notification having been published in the
Official Gazette on 11.02.2016, could not be applied to imports
covered by Letters of Credit opened earlier. The appellants sought
relief to quash the Notification and in the alternative, a
declaration was sought that the Notification does not apply to
Letters of Credit opened by the appellants prior to publication of
the Notification in the Official Gazette.
8. The High Court by a Common Order and Judgment dated
21.12.2018, though held that the Notification would operate from
11.02.2016 i.e., the date of its publication, yet it held that
4
uploading of the Notification on 05.02.2016, constituted
sufficient notice to bind importers whose letters of credit were not
opened before 05.02.2016. The High Court further held that the
Notification is not an act of delegated legislation. Accordingly, the
writ petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants
are before this Court.
SUBMISSIONS
9. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that
admittedly the Notification was published in the Official Gazette
only on 11.02.2016 and, therefore, was non-est prior to the
aforesaid date. It is contended that on a plain reading of para 2 of
the Notification read with para 1.05 (b) of the FTP, it is evident
that the importer should have opened the irrevocable Letters of
Credit before the date of imposition of restriction i.e., 11.02.2016.
It is pointed out that, in the present cases, the appellants have
opened the irrevocable Letters of Credit on 05.02.2016. It is
further pointed out that para 1.05 (b) of the FTP is incorporated
into and made an integral part of para 2 of the Notification. It is
contended that the date of the Notification cannot be read as
05.02.2016, as the Notification was admittedly published on
11.02.2016 and would be effective from the aforesaid date. In
5
support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed
on the decisions of this Court1.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that even though the Notification comes into effect
from 11.02.2016, yet the benefit of para 2 of the Notification is
restricted to Letters of Credit entered into before 05.02.2016. It is
contended that the expression ‘date of Notification’ will remain
static as 05.02.2016. It is pointed out that very often legislations
get enacted on a particular date but either the Act, in its entirety,
or some of the provisions in the Act are brought into force on a
particular date. In this connection, our attention has been invited
to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is
pointed out that even though the aforesaid Act received the
assent of the President on 27.09.2013, yet, the Act came into
force on 01.01.2014. It is contended that legal consequence of
para 2 of the Notification is that the Notification would govern
imports on and from 11.02.2016 but the benefit of para 2 of the
Notification would be extended only to the imports under the
Letters of Credit entered into before 05.02.2016.
1 B.K. Srinivasan & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 658 and Raja Harish Chandra Raj
Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., (1962) 1 SCR 676.
6
11. It is pointed out that the appellants have not opened the
Letters of Credit before the date of the Notification i.e.,
05.02.2016 and, therefore, para 1.05(b) of the FTP has no
application to the facts of the case. It is argued that even
otherwise, reference to para 1.05(b) of the FTP has no relevance
to para 2 of the Notification, as the condition mandated in para
1.05(b) is only registration of Letter of Credit with Jurisdictional
Regional Authority. Alternatively, it is contended that in case of a
conflict between the Notification and the policy, the mandate of
the statutory Notification will prevail over the policy of the
Government. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has
been placed on decisions of this Court2. Lastly, it is contended
that the judgment and order passed by the High Court does not
call for any interference in these appeals.
THE CENTRAL ISSUE
12. The pivotal issue that falls for our consideration is whether
the expression ‘date of Notification’ mentioned in para 2 of the
Notification issued under the Act, can be interpreted to mean any
date, other than the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
2 State of M.P. & Anr. v. M/s. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 150,
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar And Company And Others, AIR 2018
Supreme Court 3606.
7
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
13. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the
relevant statutory provisions. The Act was enacted to provide for
the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating
imports into, and augmenting exports from, India, and matters
connected therewith and incidental thereto. Section 3 of the Act
empowers the Central Government to regulate imports and
exports by an order published in the Official Gazette. The
relevant extract of Section 3 is reproduced below for the facility of
reference: -
“3. Powers to make provisions relating to imports
and exports - (1) The Central Government may, by
Order published in the Official Gazette, make
provision for the development and regulation of
foreign trade by facilitating imports and increasing
exports.
(2) The Central Government may also, by Order
published in the Official Gazette, make provision for
prohibiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating, in all
cases or in specified classes of cases and subject to
such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under
the Order, the [Import or export of goods or services
and technology]”
14. In exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act read with
paras 1.02 and 2.01 of FTP, the Central Government amended
the Import Policy Conditions vide Notification against 173 HS
Codes under Chapter – 72 of ITC (HS), 2012 – Schedule - I
8
(Import Policy) subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The
said Notification reads as under:
“To be Published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part-II,
Section -3, Subsection (ii)
Government of India
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce
Directorate General of Foreign Trade
Udyog Bhawan
Notification No. 38/2015-20
New Delhi, Dated: 5 February, 2016
Subject: Minimum Import Price (MIP) on Iron and Steel
under Chapter 72 of ITC (HS), 2012 - Schedule -1 (Import
Policy): amendment in import Policy Conditions.
S. 0. (E). - In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of
FT (D&R) Act, 1992 read with paragraph 1.02 and 2.01 of
the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020, as amended from
time to time, the Central Government hereby amends the
Import Policy Conditions against 173 HS Codes under
Chapter 72 of ITC (HS), 2012 - Schedule -I (Import
Policy) as per the Annex subject to the following
conditions:
a) Imports under Advance Authorisation Scheme are
exempted from Minimum Import Price (MIP) under this
Notification;
b) MIP is also exempted for all API grade steel conforming to
X-52 and higher API grades for manufacturing pipes used
for pipeline transportation systems in the petroleum and
natural gas industries;
and
c) MIP conditions laid down in this Notification are valid for
six months from the date of the notification or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
2. Further, imports / shipments under Letter of Credit
already entered into before the date of this notification
shall be exempted from the Minimum Import Price
condition subject to Para 1.05(b) of Foreign Trade Policy,
2015-20.
3. Effect of this Notification: Minimum Import Price (MIP)
is introduced against 173 HS Codes under Chapter 72 of
9
ITC (HS), 2012 - Schedule-I (Import Policy) as detailed in
the Annex.
(Anup Wadhawan)
Director General of Foreign Trade
E-mail: dgft[at]nie[dot]in
[Issued from F.No.01i89/180/Moni-5852/AM-03Nol.- l/PC-2 (A)]”
15. Para 1.05(b) of the FTP is extracted below for the facility of
reference:
“In case an export or import that is permitted freely
under FTP is subsequently subjected to any
restriction or regulation, such export or import will
ordinarily be permitted, notwithstanding such
restriction or regulation, unless otherwise
stipulated. This is subject to the condition that the
shipment of export or import is made within the
original validity period of an irrevocable commercial
letter of credit, established before the date of
imposition of such restriction and it shall be
restricted to the balance value and quantity
available and time period of such irrevocable letter of
credit. For operationalising such irrevocable letter of
credit, the applicant shall have to register the Letter
of Credit with jurisdictional Regional Authority (RA)
against computerized receipt, within 15 days of the
imposition of any such restriction or regulation.”
ANALYSIS
16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and have taken note of the relevant statutory
provisions. Law, to bind, must first exist. And to exist, it must be
made known in the manner ordained by the legislature.
Delegated legislation, unlike plenary legislation enacted by the
Parliament, is framed in the executive chambers without open
10
legislative debate. The requirement of publication in the Gazette,
therefore, serves a dual constitutional purpose i.e. (a) it ensures
accessibility and notice to those governed by the law, and (b) it
ensures accountability and solemnity in the exercise of delegated
legislative power. The requirement of publication in the Gazette,
is therefore not an empty formality. It is an act by which an
executive decision is transformed into law. It is precisely for this
reason that courts have consistently insisted that strict
compliance with the publication requirements is a condition
precedent for the enforceability of delegated legislation.
17. The legal position in this regard stands crystalised by a long
line of decisions of this Court. The true test of the effective
commencement of a statutory order or subordinate legislation is
whether it has been published in a manner reasonably calculated
to bring it to the notice of all persons who may be affected by it,
namely, through a mode which is ordinarily and generally
accepted for that purpose3. The aforesaid principle was referred
to with approval by this Court4 and it was held that natural
justice requires that before a law can become operative, it must
be promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some
3 JOHNSON V SARGANT AND SONS, (1918) 1 KB 101 : 87 LJ KB 122
4 HARLA V STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 1951 Supreme Court Cases 936
11
recognisable way so that all men may know what it is, or, at the
very least, there must be some special rule or regulation or
customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be
acquired with exercise of due and reasonable diligence.
18. Another two-Judge Bench of this Court5 undertook a
comprehensive survey of law relating to publication of
subordinate legislation. The court recognised the modern reality
that delegated legislation pervades almost every sphere of
governance, often framed unobtrusively and without the visibility
that attends Parliamentary enactments. It was, therefore, held
that publication of promulgation is indispensable to
enforceability of subordinate legislation. It was further held that
when the parent statute prescribes a particular mode of
publication, that mode must be strictly followed. The aforesaid
position was reiterated, in subsequent decisions6.
19. In the backdrop of aforesaid well-settled legal position, we
may advert to the facts of the case in hand. The parent statute,
namely the Act expressly mandates that any order regulating
imports or exports shall be made by an order published in the
5 B.K. SRINIVASAN AND ORS. V STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., 1987 (1) Supreme Court Cases 658
6 GULF GOANS HOTELS CO. LTD. V UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 673,
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V G.S. CHATHA RICE MILLS AND ANOTHER, (2021) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 209 and NABHA POWER LTD. AND ANR. V PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND
ANR. (2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 353
12
Official Gazette. The legislature in its wisdom, has not left the
mode of promulgation to executive discretion. Delegated
legislation is an instrument to give effect to the policy and
purpose of the parent statute. It, therefore, has to be construed
in the manner that advances the object of the Act, namely to
regulate foreign trade through transparent, predictable and
legally certain measures. Tested on the aforesaid legal principles,
coupled with requirement of publication in the Official Gazette,
contained in parent statute, it is manifest that the Notification
could not have acquired the force of law prior to its publication in
the Official Gazette on 11.02.2016. Indeed, the Notification itself
acknowledges its incompleteness by declaring that it is ‘to be
published in the Gazette of India’. The acknowledgement is a
confession that, until such publication, the Notification had not
crossed the threshold from intention to obligation. Once the
legislature has prescribed the specified mode of promulgation,
the executive cannot introduce an alternative mode and attribute
legal consequences to it. A Notification cannot operate in a
fragmented manner. In law, it is born only upon publication in
the Official Gazette, and it is from that date alone that rights may
be curtailed or obligations imposed. To hold otherwise, would
13
permit unpublished delegated legislation to burden citizens, a
proposition expressly rejected by this Court in long line of
decisions referred to supra.
20. Paragraph 2 of the Notification dated 05.02.2016 provides
that imports/shipments under Letter of Credit already entered
into before the date of this Notification shall be exempt from MIP
condition subject to para 1.05(b) of the FTP. Thus, Notification
incorporates para 1.05(b) of the FTP, which provides that in case
an export or import i.e. permitted freely under FTP is
subsequently subjected to any restriction or regulation, such
export or import will ordinarily be permitted, notwithstanding
such a restriction or regulation, otherwise stipulated. We do not,
therefore, find any force in the submission that para 1.05(b) of
the FTP has either no relevance or the same is in conflict with the
Notification.
21. For yet another reason, the benefit of transitional provision
contained in para 1.05(b) of the FTP cannot be denied to the
appellants, as the same would defeat the plain language of the
FTP and would undermine the object of the parent Act, and
would introduce uncertainty to a field where certainty is
indispensable. The imposition of fiscal or trade burdens on the
14
basis of an unpublished Notification would erode commercial
confidence and offend the Rule of Law, the result which the court
must steadfastly guard against.
22. Once it is held that Notification became operative only on
11.02.2016, the expression ‘date of this Notification’ occurring in
para 2 thereof, must necessarily be construed to mean the date
of its publication in the Official Gazette. Accordingly, the issue is
answered. The appellants having opened irrevocable Letters of
Credit prior to 11.02.2016 and having complied with procedural
requirements under para 1.05(b) of the FTP are clearly entitled to
the benefit of transitional provision contained therein. The MIP
introduced by the Notification with effect from 11.02.2016 cannot
be applied to imports effected by the appellants pursuant to
irrevocable Letters of Credit prior to 11.02.2016.
CONCLUSION
23. We accordingly hold that the Notification issued under
Section 3 of the Act acquires the force of law only upon its
publication in the Official Gazette. The expression ‘date of this
Notification’ must necessarily mean the date of such publication.
ORDER
24. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order and
judgment dated 21.12.2018 of the High Court is quashed and set
aside. The appellants are held entitled to protection of para
1.05(b) of the FTP.
25. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
………….……………….………….………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…………….…….……………….……..….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 21, 2026.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment