Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2026 (@ S.L.P. (C) No. 1979 of 2019) With Civil Appeal No. 439 of 2026 (@ S.L.P. (C) No. 2297 of 2019), Civil Appeal No. 440 of 2026 (@ S.L.P. (C) No. 2778 Of 2019) And Civil Appeal No. 441 of 2026 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.1977 of 2019)
Decided On : 21-01-2026
(A) Delegated Legislation – Delegated legislation, unlike plenary legislation enacted by Parliament, is framed in executive chambers without open legislative debate – Requirement of publication in Gazette, serves dual constitutional purpose i.e. (a) it ensures accessibility and notice to those governed by law, and (b) it ensures accountability and solemnity in exercise of delegated legislative power – Requirement of publication in Gazette is not an empty formality – It is an act by which an executive decision is transformed into law – True test of effective commencement of a statutory order or subordinate legislation is whether it has been published in a manner reasonably calculated to bring it to notice of all persons who may be affected by it – Publication of promulgation is indispensable to enforceability of subordinate legislation. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
(B) Delegated Legislation – Legislature in its wisdom, has not left mode of promulgation to executive discretion – Delegated legislation is an instrument to give effect to policy and purpose of parent statute – It has to be construed in the manner that advances object of the Act, to regulate foreign trade through transparent, predictable and legally certain measures – Notification itself acknowledges its incompleteness by declaring that it is ‘to be published in Gazette of India’ – Acknowledgement is a confession that, until such publication, Notification had not crossed threshold from intention to obligation – Once legislature has prescribed specified mode of promulgation, 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 Official Gazette, and it is from that date alone that rights may be curtailed or obligations imposed – To hold otherwise, would permit unpublished delegated legislation to burden citizens. (Para 19)
(C) Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – Section 3 – Chapter -72 of Indian Trade Clarification (Harmonized System), 2012 – Minimum Import Price – Imposition of, on certain steel products – Notification issued under Section 3 of the Act acquires force of law only upon its publication in Official Gazette – Expression ‘date of this Notification’ must necessarily mean date of such publication – Once it is held that Notification became operative only on 11.02.2016, expression ‘date of this Notification’ occurring in para 2 thereof, must necessarily be construed to mean date of its publication in Official Gazette – Appellants having opened irrevocable Letters of Credit prior to 11.02.2016 and having complied with procedural requirements under Para 1.05(b) of FTP are clearly entitled to benefit of transitional provision contained therein – MIP introduced by Notification with effect from 11.02.2016 cannot be applied to imports effected by appellants pursuant to irrevocable Letters of Credit prior to 11.02.2016.. (Paras 222, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise from Common Order and Judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed by High Court of Delhi, in a batch of writ petitions, whereby twrit petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed. By aforesaid order and judgment, the High 1 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.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Delegated legislation, such as notifications issued under statutory powers, only acquires the force of law upon proper publication in the Official Gazette. Without such publication, the legislation remains incomplete and unenforceable (!) (!) (!) .
The requirement of publication in the Gazette serves a dual constitutional purpose: ensuring notice to those affected and maintaining accountability and solemnity in the exercise of delegated legislative powers. This requirement is not a mere formality but a fundamental condition for enforceability (!) (!) .
The effective commencement of a subordinate legislative order is determined by whether it has been published in a manner reasonably calculated to bring it to the notice of all affected persons. Publication in the Official Gazette is the recognized mode for such promulgation (!) .
When a parent statute prescribes a specific mode of promulgation, that mode must be strictly followed. Any deviation, such as an alternative publication method, cannot confer legal validity on the legislation before proper publication in the designated manner (!) .
In the context of the case, the notification imposing a Minimum Import Price (MIP) under the relevant Act was only effective from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, which was 11.02.2016. The phrase ‘date of this Notification’ in the notification must be interpreted as the date of publication, not the date it was uploaded or announced informally (!) .
Importantly, the transitional provisions that benefit importers, such as those contained in para 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, are applicable only if the importers have taken procedural steps before the notification’s effective date. Specifically, importers who had entered into irrevocable Letters of Credit before the notification’s publication date are entitled to such transitional benefits (!) (!) .
The courts emphasize that any fiscal or trade restrictions or burdens imposed through unpublished notifications would undermine the rule of law and commercial certainty. Therefore, such notifications must be published to be effective (!) (!) .
As a result, the court set aside the earlier judgment and confirmed that the notification’s legal effect begins only upon its publication in the Gazette. Consequently, importers who acted prior to this publication date are entitled to the transitional protections provided by the law (!) .
These points collectively underscore the importance of proper publication procedures for delegated legislation to be valid and enforceable, and they clarify the interpretation of specific terms within the notification concerning the effective date of legal obligations.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK ARADHE, J.
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 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.
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 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 support of the aforesaid submissi
(1) Delegated Legislation acquires force of law only upon its publication in Official Gazette.(2) Delegated Legislation – Once legislature has prescribed specified mode of promulgation, executive can....
The court affirmed that MIPs can be validly issued under the FTDR Act, with the requirement of laying the notifications before Parliament being directory, not mandatory.
The effective date of a notification under Section 25(4) of the Customs Act is the date of its publication in the Official Gazette in e-mode.
The court declared Section 25(4) of the Customs Act unconstitutional, asserting that notification increases in duty require proper publication to inform the public adequately.
A perusal of the impugned notification reveals that by virtue of such notification the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the Act read with paragraphs 1.02 and 2.01 o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Trade Notice cannot be issued to amend a Notification under the FTDR Act, and any amendment must be made in accordance with the statutory pr....
The main legal point established is that a Trade Notice cannot amend a notification issued under Section 3 of the FTDR Act without following the statutory procedure.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
