2026 INSC 80

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ S.L.P. (C) NO. 1979 OF 2019)

VIRAJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. …APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. …RESPONDENT S

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ S.L.P. (C) NO.2297 OF 2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ S.L.P. (C) NO.2778 OF 2019)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ S.L.P. (C) NO.1977 OF 2019)

J U D G M E N T

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

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 Court

1

.

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 Court

2

. 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 purpose

3

. The aforesaid principle was referred

to with approval by this Court

4

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 Court

5

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 decisions

6

.

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.

15

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.