New import restrictions cannot apply to jewellery that arrived in India before their Gazette publication, Bombay High Court rules

The petitioner imported studded platinum jewellery under airway bills dated 30 and 31 March 2026.

The goods arrived in India before Notification No. 02/2026-27, issued on 1 April 2026, was published in the Official Gazette on 2 April 2026.

The petitioner filed bills of entry after publication, and Customs refused clearance without import authorisation.

Some consignments were provisionally released pursuant to interim orders; the dispute ultimately concerned goods under Bills of Entry Nos. 8590663, 8590666 and 8735308.

The petitioner’s challenge was to the applicability of the restriction to goods dispatched and arrived before publication, not to the validity of the notification itself.

1. Whether the date of import for applying a restriction under the Foreign Trade Policy is determined by the date of shipment/dispatch or by clearance for home consumption.

2. Whether Notification No. 02/2026-27 applied to goods dispatched and arrived in India before its publication, where the bills of entry were filed afterwards.

Sections 3 and 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empower the Central Government to regulate imports and formulate or amend the Foreign Trade Policy.

Under paragraph 1.05(b) of FTP 2023, importability is governed by the policy on the date of import, which is defined by reference to paragraph 2.17 of the Handbook of Procedures (HBP); paragraph 2.17(a), read with paragraph 11.11, reckons the import date by the shipment or dispatch date, including the relevant airway bill for air freight.

A notification acquires legal force upon publication in the Official Gazette and cannot operate retrospectively absent statutory authority, as recognised in Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills and Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.

The Court distinguished Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj and Kiran Spinning Mills v. Collector of Customs, which concerned customs duty and the Customs Act, rather than the date of import for FTP purposes.

An executive office memorandum cannot override the FTP or impose a retrospective restriction without authority of law.

The Court treated the date of import as a matter governed by the FTP and HBP, not by the Customs Act’s rules for determining duty or clearance.

The airway bills showed that the goods had been dispatched before the policy change, and the goods had also arrived in India before the notification’s publication.

The later filing of bills of entry and pending clearance therefore did not make the new restriction applicable.

The notification’s exclusion of transitional benefits did not alter the result because the petitioner relied on the FTP’s definition of the import date, rather than on a transitional benefit for goods dispatched after the restriction.

The Court also rejected the DGFT office memorandum as an executive clarification lacking authority to amend the FTP or give the notification retrospective effect.

It allowed the petition, directed the respondents to release the goods covered by Bills of Entry Nos. 8590663, 8590666 and 8735308 expeditiously, and directed that Bill of Entry No. 8590666 be permitted without insisting on import authorisation.

The Interim Application was also disposed of.