Delegated legislation takes effect only upon digital signature and publication in the Official Gazette, not retrospectively.

The Petitioner No. 1, a company trading in precious metals, imported 1,458 pieces of platinum jewelry from Thailand under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Area (AIFTA) agreement

The commercial invoice and Airway Bill (AWB) were issued on 31.03.2026, and the goods were handed over to the carrier the same day

The goods arrived at Ahmedabad Airport on 02.04.2026 at 00:15 Hrs

Subsequently, the Respondent authorities refused clearance, citing Notification No. 02/2026-27 (dated 01.04.2026), which restricted such imports and withdrew transitional benefits

However, the said Notification was only digitally signed and published in the e-Gazette on 02.04.2026 at 22:46:52 Hrs—nearly 22 hours after the goods had already landed in India

1. Whether a DGFT Notification seeking to restrict imports can be applied to goods that arrived at the port of entry prior to the actual time of the Notification's publication in the Official Gazette

2. Whether the executive can retrospectively withdraw transitional arrangements provided under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) through a notification that has not yet been promulgated or broadcasted

Section 3(2) and Section 5 of The Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, which mandate that any order regulating or restricting imports must be made by a notification published in the Official Gazette

Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026), which held that delegated legislation only acquires the force of law upon publication in the Gazette to ensure accessibility and accountability

Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills (2020), which established that in the era of electronic gazettes, a notification applies only from the precise time it is digitally signed and uploaded

The court reasoned that a law must be known to the governed to be binding; thus, publication is not a mere formality but a condition precedent for enforceability

Comparing the timeline, the court found that the Petitioner’s goods arrived at 00:15 Hrs on 02.04.2026, whereas the restrictive Notification was only digitally signed and promulgated at 22:46:52 Hrs on the same day

Applying the G.S. Chatha Rice Mills doctrine, the court determined that the Notification could not operate retrospectively to affect goods that had already completed transit and reached the airport before the Notification "crossed the threshold from intention to obligation"

The court rejected the Respondents' argument that the "immediate effect" clause in the Notification could override the landing time, as the executive cannot attribute legal consequences to an unpublished instrument

The court directed Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to immediately assess and grant out-of-charge clearance to the Petitioner’s consignment without insisting on an import authorization or license under the impugned Notification. Rule made absolute