Import Restrictions Operating Prospectively Cannot Apply to Goods That Arrived Prior to Official Gazette Publication

The Petitioner, a trader of precious metals, imported Platinum Alloy Jewellery from Bangkok, Thailand via Airway Bills dated March 30 and 31, 2026

On April 1, 2026, the DGFT issued Notification No. 02/2026-27, changing the import policy for such goods from "Free" to "Restricted"

This notification was digitally timestamped in the e-Official Gazette at 20:52:28 hrs on April 2, 2026

The Petitioner’s consignments reached Indian ports between April 1 and the early morning of April 2, 2026, roughly 20 hours before the notification's publication

Customs authorities refused clearance, citing the new notification and an Office Memorandum claiming the policy applied to all goods not cleared before April 1, 2026

1. Whether a subordinate legislation/notification published in the e-Gazette can be applied retrospectively to goods that arrived at the port prior to the date and time of its digital publication

2. Whether the Court can grant relief in the absence of a specific prayer challenging the validity of the notification itself

Delegated legislation must be published in the Official Gazette to acquire the force of law, as established in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

The "digital timestamp" rule from Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, which holds that in the era of electronic gazettes, a notification is effective only from the precise time it is uploaded

Subordinate legislation cannot operate retrospectively unless the parent statute (Foreign Trade Development & Regulation Act, 1992) expressly confers such power, as per Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports

Ultra vires regulations can be ignored during enforcement even without a specific prayer to strike them down, per Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise

The Court reasoned that "law, to bind, must first exist" and only comes into existence upon publication

Since the notification was digitally signed and uploaded on April 2, 2026, at 20:52:28 hrs, it could not govern transactions or arrivals completed prior to that timestamp

The Court rejected the Respondents' argument that import is only "complete" upon clearance, noting that the Petitioner’s last consignment arrived at 01:39 AM on April 2, nearly 20 hours before the notification attained legal force

The Court also dismissed procedural objections regarding the lack of a prayer to strike down the notification, holding that since the notification was factually inapplicable to the Petitioner’s pre-existing imports, its validity did not need to be adjudicated

The relevant date for policy application is the time of publication, not the date of clearance

The Court allowed the petition and directed the Respondents to immediately process and release the Petitioner’s consignments without insisting on a restricted-category import authorization