Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI, JJ.
Enero Jewels Pvt.Ltd. And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No.5512 Of 2026
Decided On : 20-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Tushar Hemani Senior Advocate With Mr Dhaval Shah
For the Respondent: Ms Hetal Patel, Mr Ankit Shah

Delegated legislation becomes enforceable only upon publication in the official electronic gazette. A restrictive notification cannot be applied retrospectively to goods that arrived before the digital publication timestamp of the notification, as legal obligations only commence once the regulation is duly promulgated.

Headnote:(A) Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Sections 3 and 5 - Foreign Trade Policy 2023 - Paragraphs 1.02, 1.05(b) and 2.01 - Import policy - Restrictive notification - Timing of operation - Retrospective application - Statutory requirement for publication in Official Gazette is a condition precedent for enforceability - Legislation does not exist until made known in the manner ordained by the legislature - Digital publication in e-Gazette marks the effective commencement of subordinate legislation - Notification cannot operate to restrict the rights of importers for goods already arrived prior to the digital signing and publication of the notification. (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 11, 13)

(B) Delegated Legislation - Publication requirements - Necessity for transparency and notice - Executive cannot introduce alternative modes of promulgation after legislature has prescribed a specific mode - Notification published after a digital signature cannot have retrospective effect unless expressly authorized by statute. (Paras 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The importer sought clearance of a consignment that arrived at port prior to the digital issuance of a restrictive government notification. The authorities denied clearance, invoking the new notification which prohibited the import benefits for the goods in question, claiming it applied to all pending consignments regardless of shipment status.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the notification, introduced in the exercise of delegated powers, was digitally signed and published in the e-Gazette after the consignment had already reached the port. Consistent with established legal principles on the commencement of subordinate legislation, the court held that the notification could not be applied retrospectively to goods that had already reached their destination prior to the timestamp of publication.

Issues: Whether a restrictive import notification can be applied retrospectively to goods already in transit or arrived before the digital publication of said notification in the official e-Gazette.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegated legislation acquires the force of law only upon its publication in the official gazette. Since the notification was published after the goods arrived at the port, it cannot be used to retrospectively deny transitional benefits to an importer who acted before the law was promulgated. The digital timestamp of publication is the definitive moment for commencement, and executive authorities cannot impose obligations through unpublished or subsequently published delegated legislation.

Result: Petition allowed; the authorities are directed to assess and clear the consignment without requiring the authorization imposed by the contested notification.

Table of Content
1. preliminary procedural orders and the scope of relief sought by the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. factual background and chronological sequence of the import transaction. (Para 5 , 9)
3. competing arguments regarding the applicability of restrictive notifications to goods in transit. (Para 6 , 7)
4. verification of events and statutory timing of notification publication. (Para 8 , 10 , 14)
5. delegated legislation is effective only upon publication and cannot operate retroactively. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15)
6. final order granting the relief of clearance for the petitioner's goods. (Para 16)

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Looking to the urgency in the matter, the same is taken up for final hearing today. Learned advocate for the petitioners is permitted to delete respondent no.2- The Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). Registry is permitted to effect the said amendment.

2. Rule. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.Hetal Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5.

3. The following prayers are made in the present writ petition :

“9(A) Issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing and setting aside Paragraphs 2 and 3 of DGFT Notification No. 02/2026-27 dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure- A), to the extent it arbitrarily excludes the benefit of transitional arrangements under Para 1.05(b) of the FTP 2023 and applies retrospectively to goods already in transit;

(B) Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of transitional arrangements under Para 1.05(b) of the FTP 2023 read with Para 11.11 of the HBP 2023 for the consignment imported vide AWB No. 232-1693-3114 dated 31.03.2026;

(C) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to immediately assess, clear, and grant out-of-charge to the petitioner’s consignment covered under IGM No. 3020909 dated 02.04.2026, without insisting upon any import authorization/license under the impugned Notification No. 2/2026-2024 dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure-A);

(D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, grant ad interim ex-parte relief directing respondent no.4 and 5 to provisionally release the subject goods to the petitioner upon execution of the suitable bond/undertaking;”

4. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani upon instructions of learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Shah appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners would not press the prayer clause 9(A).

FACTS OF THE CASE

5. The petitioner no.1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of import, export and trading of precious metals, stones and Jewellery, whereas, petitioner no.2 is the Director and shareholder of petitioner no.1. On 31.03.2026, the petitioner executed a commercial transaction for the import of 1,458 pieces of “Platinum Jewellery Studded with Fresh Water Pearl” (CTH 7113 19 22) from M/s Amonsak Anyamanee Co. Ltd, Bangkok, Thailand. The said goods were imported under the ASEAN- India Free Trade Area (AIFTA) agreement. The supplier issued the Commercial Invoice No. AA106 dated 31.03.2026 for a CIF value of USD 9,637,100.00. The goods strictly fulfilled the “RVC + CTSH” originating criteria under Rule 4 of the AIFTA Agreement, and a Preferential Tariff Certificate of Origin (Form AI No. AI2026-0021714) was duly issued.

5.1 On 31.03.2026, the goods were handed over to the carrier (Malaysia Airlines) at Suvarnabhumi International Airport (BKK). The airline accepted the goods at 18:45 Hrs and issued Airway Bill (AWB) No. 232-1693-3114 dated 31.03.2026. The flight (MH 797) departed Bangkok at 00:03 Hrs on 01.04.2026. The subject goods arrived at Ahmedabad Airport on 02.04.2026 at 00:15 Hrs, and IGM No. 3020909 was filed. On 02.04.2026, the petitioner submitted a formal request letter to respondent no.5, seeking immediate clearance on the ground

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADA.S. SUPEHIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI, JJ.Enero Jewels Pvt.Ltd. And Anr. – Appellants VersusThe Union Of India And Ors. – Respondents Special Civil Application No.5512 Of 2026Decided On : 20-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI, JJ.
Enero Jewels Pvt.Ltd. And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No.5512 Of 2026
Decided On : 20-04-2026