Recently, the Supreme Court allowed appeals challenging a Delhi High Court order, clarifying the effective date of a Notification imposing Minimum Import Prices (MIP) on certain steel products under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Court held that the Notification acquires legal force only upon its publication in the Official Gazette, emphasizing that delegated legislation cannot operate before formal promulgation, as doing so would erode commercial certainty and violate the Rule of Law.
Brief Fact:
The dispute arose when private companies importing steel products challenged a government notification introducing Minimum Import Prices (MIP) for certain steel items. Before this notification, products like Hot Rolled Coils, Cold Rolled Coils, and Pre-Painted Steel Coils could be freely imported.
The companies had already entered into contracts with foreign suppliers and opened Letters of Credit just as the government uploaded the MIP notification online, which was later officially published in the Gazette. The appellants claimed that the MIP could not apply to imports arranged before the notification became official and sought protection under the Foreign Trade Policy’s transitional provisions.
Contentions for the Petitioner:
The appellants contended that the Notification became legally enforceable only upon its publication on 11 February 2016, and not from the online upload on 5 February 2016. They argued that para 1.05(b) of the FTP entitled them to transitional protection since their irrevocable LCs were opened prior to the Notification’s effective date. Reliance was placed on precedent establishing that the enforceability of delegated legislation is contingent upon proper promulgation and public notice. Counsel stressed that any attempt to apply the Notification earlier would contravene the principles of natural justice and undermine commercial confidence.
Contentions for the Respondent:
The respondents argued that the Notification’s online upload on 5 February 2016 constituted sufficient notice to bind importers. They submitted that the expression “date of this Notification” should be treated as static, covering LCs opened after 5 February 2016, while transitional protection applied only to LCs opened before that date. Counsel cited legislative examples where enactments or notifications take effect on a date different from their formal assent, highlighting that the Notification governed imports from 11 February 2016, but the benefit of para 1.05(b) was limited to LCs predating 5 February 2016.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory framework under the FT(D&R) Act, 1992, emphasizing that delegated legislation requires strict compliance with publication requirements. The Court noted, “Law, to bind, must first exist. And to exist, it must be made known in the manner ordained by the legislature.” Highlighting established precedents, it stressed that publication in the Official Gazette is indispensable for enforceability, serving both to notify those affected and to ensure executive accountability. The Court rejected the argument that online uploading constituted legal effect, observing that the Notification itself acknowledged incompleteness by stating it was “to be published in the Gazette of India.”
The Bench further noted that applying the Notification prior to gazette publication would erode commercial confidence and violate the Rule of Law. The Court held that transitional protection under para 1.05(b) of the FTP applied to LCs opened before 11 February 2016, ensuring consistency with the statutory object of transparent, predictable, and legally certain trade regulation.
The decision of the Court:
The Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and held that the Notification imposing Minimum Import Prices became operative only upon publication in the Official Gazette on 11 February 2016. The appellants were granted the benefit of para 1.05(b) of the FTP, safeguarding their irrevocable Letters of Credit opened prior to the Notification’s gazette publication. The core principle (Ratio Decidendi) establishes that delegated legislation binds only from the date of formal promulgation, reinforcing the constitutional requirement of notice and legal certainty in trade regulation. The appeals were allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ S.L.P. (C) NO. 1979 OF 2019)
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha. Hon'ble Justice Alok Aradhe
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. S. Ganesh, Adv. Rajesh Rawal, AOR. Ashwani Kumar,
Advocate for the Respondent: A.S.G. N Venkatraman, AOR. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv. Chandan, Adv. Priyanka Das, Adv. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. V C Bharathi, Adv. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. G S Makkee (AOR)
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :