M/S Bright Metal Refiners vs Director General & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 25 May, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 4 June, 2026
th
Date of Uploading: 4 June, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 5551/2026
M/S BRIGHT METAL REFINERS
( THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. ASHISH GUPTA)
th
415-416, 4 FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTRE,
BABAR ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 .... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Jayant Kumar,
Mr. Krishnendu Bhaumik, Mr.
Prem Ranjan Kumar and Ms.
Hemlata Rawat, Advocates
Versus
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE (DGFT)
VANIJYA BHAWAN, ‘A’ WING, 16 AKBAR ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110011. ….RESPONDENT NO.1
2. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES (CBIC)
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001 ….RESPONDENT NO.2
3. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
AIR CARGO COMPLEX IMPORT
NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, NEAR IGI AIRPORT,
NEW DELHI-110037. ….RESPONDENT NO.3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 1 of 21
4. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
AIRPORT SPECIAL CARGO COMMISSIONERATE (APSC)
th
AWAS CORPORATE POINT, 6 FLOOR,
ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD,
MUMBAI-400059. ….RESPONDENT NO.4
5. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
SRI GURU RAM DAS JI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
AMRITSAR, PUNJAB-143101. ….RESPONDENT NO.5
6. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
VANIJYA BHAWAN, 16 AKBAR ROAD,
NEW DELHI, 110001 ….RESPONDENT NO.6
Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, CGSC with
Mr. Aishwarya Deep Singh and
Ms. Aakriti, Advocates for
respondent no.1
Ms. Anushree Narain, Senior
Standing Counsel with Mr. Yamit
Jetley, Advocate for respondents
no. 2 to 5
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 2 of 21
JUDGMENT
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to the respondents to
th
allow clearance of goods covered under Airway Bills dated 30 March,
st
2026 and 31 March, 2026.
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as
follows:
i. The petitioner, M/s Bright Metal Refiners , has its registered
office at Babar Road, New Delhi–110001 and is engaged in
the business of importing and trading precious metals.
ii. The petitioner sought to import Platinum Alloy Jewellery
studded with precious stones (Ruby), falling under Tariff
Entry 71131925 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975.
th st
iii. On 30 March, 2026 and 31 March, 2026, Airway Bills were
issued by Malaysia Airlines and Cathay Pacific Airlines for
export of platinum alloy jewellery studded with precious
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 3 of 21
stone(Ruby) from Bangkok, Thailand to different airports in
India. The details of the Airway Bills are as follows:
iv. Subsequently, in exercise of powers conferred under Sections
3 and 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act,
1992, read with paragraphs 1.02 and 2.01 of the Foreign Trade
st
Policy, 2023, Notification No. 02/2026-27 dated 01 April,
nd
2026 was published in the e-Official Gazette on 2 April,
2026, bearing a digital timestamp of 20:52:28 hrs, whereby the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 4 of 21
import policy of goods falling under CTH 7113 was changed
from “ Free” to “ Restricted”.
v. The said Notification amended the import policy and stated
that notwithstanding anything contained in Paragraph 1.05(b)
of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 or any other provision, the
benefit of transitional arrangements shall not be available in
respect of the restrictions imposed under the said Notification.
It further provided that the amended import policy shall come
into force with immediate effect and shall apply irrespective
of any prior contract, irrevocable letter of credit, advance
payment, shipment status. Relevant paragraph of the said
notification reads as under:
“2. Notwithstanding anything contained in Para
1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, (FTP) or
any other provision, the benefit of transitional
arrangements shall not apply to the restrictions
imposed under this Notification.
3. The import policy as amended above shall come
into force with immediate effect and shall apply
irrespective of any prior contract, irrevocable letter
of credit, advance payment, or shipment status.”
vi. The grievance of the petitioner is that the goods are not being
cleared by Customs. The Customs authorities at the respective
ports have orally communicated to the petitioner that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 5 of 21
goods sought to be imported by the petitioner are not being
cleared on account of aforesaid notification.
vii. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the DGFT to issue
appropriate clarification and the Customs Department at the
respective ports to allow clearance of its goods, on the ground
that the same had been imported prior to the coming into force
of Notification No. 02/2026-27 and therefore, the changed
policy restriction would not apply to the subject imports,
which remains unanswered by the respondents till date.
viii. The petitioner, however, received a response from the Office
of the Commissioner of Customs (APSC), Mumbai, vide letter
th
dated 16 April, 2026, wherein reference was made to
Notification No. 02/2026–27 and it was stated that the goods
covered under the Bills of Entry could not be permitted for
clearance without a valid import authorization/license. The
petitioner was further advised to avail any other permissible
remedy as it deems appropriate.
ix. The Office of the Commissioner of Customs (APSC),
Mumbai, further informed the petitioner that, vide letter dated
th
15 April, 2026, clarification had been sought from the
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), New
Delhi, regarding the applicability of the expressions
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 6 of 21
“ irrespective of shipment status” and “ transitional
arrangements”, as is mentioned in Notification No. 02/2026–
27, in respect of the goods in question. However, till date, no
clarification has been issued by CBIC in this regard.
x. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this
Court seeking directions for clearance of the subject goods.
3. Amongst others, the contention of Mr. Prakash Shah, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner is that a notification comes into force only from
the date and time of its publication in the official Gazette. As such, the said
nd
notification acquired the force of law only on 2 April, 2026 at 20:52:58
hrs. To strengthen his plea, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court
in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India , (2026) 38 Centax 243 (SC).
4. It is further his contention that the present case is squarely covered
by the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court in Enero Jewels Pvt.
th
Ltd. v. Union of India , R/SCA No. 5512/2026, decided on 20 April, 2026,
wherein it was held that the aforesaid Notification would come into force
only when it is digitally signed in the Official Gazette. The Court further
held that where the goods had landed prior to the publication of the
Notification, the effect of such Notification could not operate
retrospectively to such goods, particularly when the Notification came to
be published nearly 22 hours after the arrival of the goods therein.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 7 of 21
5. It is his submission that the last consignment of the petitioner reached
nd
the Indian ports on 02 April, 2026 at 01:39 AM, which was about 20 hours
prior to the date and time when Notification No. 02/2026–27 was published
in the Official Gazette.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has provided a tabular
chart detailing all his consignments, along with their respective airway bill
numbers and time of arrival. The said chart is reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 8 of 21
7. Further, the learned Senior Counsel would urge that paragraphs 2
and 3 of the Notification apply only to goods shipped/dispatched after the
imposition of the restriction, as the transitory provisions of paragraph
1.05(b) applies to goods already shipped/dispatched post such restriction.
Consequently, the said provisions do not apply to the goods which already
arrived in India before imposition of the restriction, as such, goods fall
outside the scope of the said Notification.
8. As against above, learned counsel for the respondents would urge
that no prayer was made qua the said Notification in the prayer clause. The
prayer and the relief sought in the present petition cannot be granted to the
petitioner unless and until the legality of the notification is decided.
9. It is submitted that there lies an alternative remedy available to the
petitioner under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. In terms of paragraph 2.59
of the said Policy, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Policy
Relaxation Committee for grant of exemption, relaxation, or any other
appropriate relief in cases involving genuine hardship or adverse impact on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 9 of 21
trade. In view of the availability of such alternative remedy, this Court
ought not to entertain the present petition.
10. Further, an objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court has
also been raised by the respondents, stating that the petition has joined
multiple causes of action, most of which do not arise in the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court.
11. It is their contention that the Notification explicitly excludes the
applicability of paragraph 1.05(b) relating to transitional protection, and
therefore, the legislative intent is clear and overriding.
12. According to them, though the shipment was dispatched on 30th and
st
31 March, 2026, and the Bills of Entry were filed on 03rd April, 2026 and
07th April, 2026, the fact remains that the Notification came into effect on
02nd April, 2026 at 20:52:28 IST, and the goods had not been cleared prior
to that date. Thus, the import remained incomplete until clearance and,
therefore, the subject goods are subject to the restriction.
13. It is claimed that, pursuant to the representation made by Customs
(Amritsar) to the DGFT, the DGFT issued an Office Memorandum dated
th st
13 May, 2026, stating that any import consignment not cleared before 1
April, 2026 would be governed by the revised restricted policy, irrespective
of the date of arrival of the goods or the date of filing of the Bills of Entry.
14. In rebuttal to the aforesaid contentions of the respondents, the
learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the date of
clearance of the goods is wholly irrelevant and the relevant date for
reckoning import is defined, under Paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 10 of 21
Policy, 2023 read with Paragraph 11.11 of the Handbook of Procedures,
2023, as the date of shipment/dispatch of the goods from the supplying
country, and not the date of arrival of the goods at an Indian port or their
subsequent clearance.
15. In regard to the contention that there exists an alternative remedy, the
petitioner submits that the same is misconceived and the said paragraph
does not provide for any effective remedy in law. So also, the fact that when
the impugned Notification itself has no application to the petitioner ’ s
consignments (the date of import being prior to its coming into force), the
question of seeking any authorisation or approaching the Policy Relaxation
Committee does not arise.
16. According to the petitioner, it is well settled that rules or regulations,
being in the nature of subordinate legislation, if found to be ultra vires , are
liable to be disregarded by the Courts when the question of their
enforcement arises. The mere absence of a specific relief seeking to strike
down or declare such provisions ultra vires cannot preclude the Court from
refusing to enforce them. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the
judgment of M/S Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs Commnr. Of
Central Excise &Anr (2016) 3 SCC 643.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
18. Before we begin to proceed and decide the present petition on merits,
we may deal with the objection raised by the respondents that there is no
specific relief prayed qua the validity of the said notification and the relief
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 11 of 21
sought for cannot be granted unless and until the legality of the notification
is decided.
19. As against this objection, reliance was placed by the petitioner on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v.
Commissioner of Central Excise , 2015 (326) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) to urge that
the Courts can ignore the subordinate legislation which are ultra vires when
the question of their enforcement arises. Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment reads as under:
“29. It would be seen that Shri Aggarwal is on firm ground
because this Court has specifically stated that rules or
regulations which are in the nature of subordinate legislation
which are ultra vires are bound to be ignored by the Courts
when the question of their enforcement arises and the mere fact
that there is no specific relief sought for to strike down or
declare them ultra vires would not stand in the Court ’ s way of
not enforcing them. We also feel that since this is a question of
the very jurisdiction to levy interest and is otherwise
15/05/2026, 11:40 10/15 140 covered by a Constitution Bench
decision of this Court, it would be a travesty of justice if we
would not to allow Shri Aggarwal to make this submission.”
20. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the nature of the relief sought
in the present petition does not require us to adjudicate the validity of the
notification, as the case of the petitioner is that the subject goods had
already landed prior to the publication of the notification and the
notification in question has no application to the facts of the present case.
Therefore, if the petitioner succeeds in the said contention, there would be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 12 of 21
no relevance of examining the validity of the notification. In such an
eventuality, we overrule the said objection.
21. Now, moving to the principal question that falls for consideration
before this Court that whether the notification published in the e-official
Gazette on 2nd April, 2026 with a time stamp of 20:52:28 hrs can be made
applicable to the goods that were already booked vide Airway Bills before
the notification came to be published.
22. To answer the aforesaid question, it would be pertinent to consider
the judicial precedents that have a bearing on the issue.
23. We may begin by noting the decision in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd.
(supra), wherein the Apex Court held that the legal position has been
crystallised that a notification or any other form of subordinate legislation
becomes enforceable only when the same is published in the manner
reasonably calculated to bring it to the notice of all the persons who may be
effected by it. It was observed that the requirement of publication in the
gazette is not an empty formality. The relevant portion of the said judgment
reads thus:-
“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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 13 of 21
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, Johnson
v. Sargant and Sons, (1918) 1 KB 101 : 87 LJ KB 122. The
aforesaid principle was referred to with approval by this
Court HARLA v. State of Rajasthan, 1951 Supreme Court
Cases 936 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 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.
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 14 of 21
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 permit unpublished delegated
legislation to burden citizens, a proposition expressly
rejected by this Court in long line of decisions referred to
supra.”
(Emphasis supplied)
24. As regards the point of time at which a notification takes effect after
its publication, this issue was examined by the Apex Court in Union of
India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills 2020 (374) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.), wherein the
Court emphasized that the exact date and time of publication assume
significance, especially having regard to the manner in which the gazettes
are being published, has shifted from analog to digital. The same reads as
under:
“58. With the change in the manner of publishing gazette
notifications from analog to digital, the precise time when
the gazette is published in the electronic mode assumes
significance. Notification No. 5/2019, which is akin to the
exercise of delegated legislative power, under the
emergency power to notify and revise tariff duty under
Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, cannot
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 15 of 21
operate retrospectively, unless authorized by statute. In
the era of the electronic publication of gazette
notifications and electronic filing of bills of entry, the
revised rate of import duty under the Notification No.
5/2019 applies to bills of entry presented for home
consumption after the notification was uploaded in the e-
Gazette at 20:46:58 hours on 16 February, 2019.”
25. The effect of giving a notification retrospective effect was also
examined by the Apex Court in the case of Director General of Foreign
Trade vs Kanak Exports 2015 (326) ELT 26, wherein it was held as under:
“108. We may, in the first instance, make this legal position
clear that a delegated or subordinate legislation can only
be prospective and not retrospective, unless rule making
authority has been vested with power under a statute to
make rules with retrospective effect. In the present case,
Section 5 of the Act does not give any such power
specifically to the Central Government to make rules
retrospective. No doubt, this Section confer powers upon
the Central Government to ‘ amend ’ the policy which has
been framed under the aforesaid provisions. However, that
by itself would not mean that such a provision empowers
the Government to do so retrospective. This legal position
is rightly discussed by the Bombay High Court in the
impugned judgment in the following words :
“ We are unable to accept the submissions of learned
Additional Solicitor General. The word “ amend” does not
give power to make amendment retrospectively if it is used
in relation to the power to make a piece of delegated
legislation. The connotation of the word “ amend” when it
is used for the exercise of power by a legislature cannot be
pressed to construe the word “ amend” in relation to the
power to make delegated legislation. In this regard the
following observations of the Supreme Court in Accountant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 16 of 21
General and Another v. Doraiswamy - (1981) 4 SCC 93 are
pertinent :
“ The next question is whether clause (5) of Article 148
permits the enactment of rules having retrospective
operation. It is settled law that unless a statute conferring
the power to make rules provides for the making of rules
with retrospective operation, the rules made pursuant to
that power can have prospective operation only. An
exception, however, is the proviso to Article 309. In B.S.
Vadera v. Union of India - AIR 1969 SC 118, this Court
held that the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution could have retrospective operation. The
conclusion followed from the circumstance that the power
conferred under the proviso to Article 309 was intended to
fill a hiatus, that is to say, until Parliament or a State
Legislature enacted a law on the subject-matter of Article
309. The rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 were
transient in character and were to do duty only until
legislation was enacted. As interim substitutes for such
legislation it was clearly intended that the rules should
have the same range of operation as an Act of Parliament
or of the State Legislature. The intent was reinforced by the
declaration in the proviso to Article 309 that “ any rules so
made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such
Act”. Those features are absent in clause (5) of Article 148.
There is nothing in the language of that clause to indicate
that the rules framed therein were intended to serve until
parliamentary legislation was enacted. All that the clause
says is that the rules framed would be subject to the
provisions of the Constitution and of any law made by
Parliament. We are satisfied that clause (5) of Article 148
confers power on the President to frame rules operating
prospectively only. Clearly then, the Rules of 1974 cannot
have retrospective operation, and therefore, sub-rule (2) of
Rule 1, which declares that they will be deemed to have
come into force on July 27, 1956 must be held ultra vires.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 17 of 21
The reliance placed on the power to regulate under Section
3 of the Act is equally misconceived. Section 5 gives express
power to formulate the policy and to amend it. This is
specific power. The power to regulate therefore, cannot be
read as a power to amend when a specific power to amend
is given. If the power to regulate does not include the power
to amend retrospectively such a power cannot be read into
Section 3 of the Act.
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act on which reliance is
placed by learned Additional Solicitor General is also of no
assistance to sustain the retrospective operation of the
notification. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act
embodies a rule of construction, nature and extent of
application of which must inevitably be governed by the
relevant provisions of the statute which confers power to
issue the notification. The said power must be exercised
within the limits prescribed by the provisions conferring the
said power. (See Gopichand v. Delhi Administration, AIR
1959 SC 609, Lachmi Narayan and Ors. v. Union of India
and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 953 and State of Kerala and Ors.
v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai and Ors. - (1988) 4 SCC 669. The
ratio in H.C. Suman ’ s case also cannot be applied because
in that case it was found that Section 88 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 contained the power to
exempt and if the provisions of Section 12 of the said Act
were to be exempted the provisions which provided that
bye-laws are effective from the date of registration. The
notification issued under Section 88 would exempt it and
Section 88 would contain the power to exempt
retrospectively. Similarly, Section 14 of the General
Clauses Act has no application as it merely provides that
where any power is conferred on the Government, then that
power can be exercised from time to time as occasion
requires.
Under that Scheme the status holder is eligible for benefits
upon achieving the incremental growth of 25% of the FOB
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 18 of 21
value of exports in the current year over the previous year.
It therefore follows that no sooner the status holder
achieves 25% incremental growth, the status holder would
be entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. Immediately
upon attaining the prescribed incremental growth, the
status holder becomes eligible to certificate for duty free
import and thereby a right vests in the exporter to receive
the same.”
26. The effect of the decisions in Viraj Impex (supra) and G.S Chatha
Rice Mills (supra) was examined by a Division Bench of Gujarat High
Court in Enero jewels Pvt Ltd (supra). The effect of the very same
notification as in the present petition was before it. The Division Bench held
as follows:
“15. Hence, in our considered opinion, since the intention
of the Notification was to come into force with immediate
effect which in fact would be when the same has been
digitally signed at 22:46:52 Hrs on 02.04.2026. Thus, the
Notification came into effect after the goods already landed
at the Ahmedabad Airport at 00:15 Hrs on 02.04.2026.
Hence, the effect of the Notification cannot travel
retrospectively to such goods, more particularly, when it is
published / promulgated nearly 22 Hrs after the arrival of
the goods. Therefore, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 fall in
error in applying the Notification issued on 02.04.2026 to
the goods of the petitioner.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition partly succeeds. The
respondent nos. 4 & 5 are directed 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.2/2026-27 dated 01.04.2026 subject to fulfillment of
other official procedure. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 19 of 21
27. In view of the aforementioned judgments of the Apex Court, we find
ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. The
factual position in the present case does not differ from what was before the
Gujarat High Court. In the present case the imported goods were dispatched
from the country of export on 31st March, 2026 and 01st April, 2026
respectively, and arrived at the Indian ports of import on 01st April, 2026
and 02nd April, 2026, the tabular chart of which has been reproduced herein
above. The last consignment imported by the Petitioner arrived at the Indian
port of import on 02nd April, 2026 at 01:39 AM, which is prior to the time
when the Notification was published. The said fact has not been disputed
by the respondents. Also, admittedly before the said notification the goods
sought to be imported were under the “free” category.
28. Thus, in such an eventuality, the goods in question were imported
prior to the notification coming into force and are liable to be cleared in
accordance with the conditions and legal position that prevailed before the
issuance of the said notification.
29. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause ‘a’.
30. We direct that the goods of the petitioner be processed for release
immediately in terms of above observations.
31. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 20 of 21
32. A copy of judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(JUDGE)
AJAY DIGPAUL
(JUDGE)
JUNE 04, 2026 / ay/sk
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:04.06.2026
16:25:56
W.P. (C) No.5551/2026 Page 21 of 21