Supreme Court reaffirms that unpublished notifications cannot burden importers and commercial rights
Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
2026 INSC 80 | Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1979 of 2019
Decision dated: 21 January 2026
Coram: Justice Alok Aradhe & Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Background of the Dispute
Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. and other importers were engaged in the import and trading of steel products such as hot-rolled coils, cold-rolled coils and steel plates. Until early 2016, these products were freely importable under Chapter 72 of the ITC (HS) Classification, governed by the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015–2020.
Between 29 January and 4 February 2016, the importers entered into firm contracts with foreign suppliers from China and South Korea. On 5 February 2016, they opened irrevocable letters of credit (LCs) in favour of these suppliers.
On the very same day, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) uploaded Notification No. 38/2015-20, introducing a Minimum Import Price (MIP) on certain steel products. However, this notification clearly stated that it was “to be published in the Gazette of India” and was in fact published in the Official Gazette only on 11 February 2016.
Anticipating restrictions, the importers applied for registration of their LCs under the transitional protection clause (Para 1.05(b)) of the FTP. Despite this, their imports were denied exemption from MIP.
Proceedings Before the High Court
The Delhi High Court acknowledged that the notification became effective only upon its Gazette publication on 11 February 2016. Yet, it held that the uploading of the notification on 5 February 2016 amounted to sufficient notice, and that only LCs opened before that date would receive protection.
Aggrieved by this reasoning, the importers approached the Supreme Court.
Core Legal Issue
Can the expression “date of this Notification” be interpreted as a date prior to its publication in the Official Gazette?
What the Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court decisively rejected the High Court’s approach and restored doctrinal clarity on the enforceability of delegated legislation.
The Court held that law, to bind, must first legally exist, and for delegated legislation, existence begins only upon publication in the Official Gazette, as mandated by the parent statute.
Uploading a notification on a website, even by a statutory authority, does not create enforceable legal obligations.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court emphasised that:
- Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 explicitly requires trade-restricting orders to be published in the Official Gazette.
- Gazette publication is not a procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard, ensuring notice, accessibility, and accountability.
- Delegated legislation cannot operate in fragments—it is “born” only upon Gazette publication.
The Bench relied on settled precedent, including B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, to reiterate that unpublished subordinate legislation cannot impose burdens on citizens.
The Court strongly warned that allowing unpublished notifications to affect commercial rights would undermine legal certainty, commercial confidence, and the rule of law.
Interpretation of Transitional Protection
Paragraph 2 of the MIP notification exempted imports under LCs entered into before the “date of this notification”, subject to Para 1.05(b) of the FTP.
The Court held that:
- Para 1.05(b) was expressly incorporated into the notification.
- There was no conflict between the notification and the FTP.
- Once the notification became effective on 11 February 2016, that date alone must be treated as the “date of this notification”.
Since the appellants had opened irrevocable LCs before 11 February 2016 and complied with procedural requirements, they were entitled to full transitional protection.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court held that:
- A notification under Section 3 of the FTDR Act acquires the force of law only upon Gazette publication.
- The expression “date of this notification” necessarily means the date of Gazette publication.
- The Minimum Import Price could not be applied retrospectively to imports backed by LCs opened before 11 February 2016.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Delhi High Court was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, with no order as to costs Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India..
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling is a strong reaffirmation that executive convenience cannot replace statutory discipline. In trade and fiscal matters—where predictability is essential—the Supreme Court has made it clear that unpublished law cannot penalise businesses.
For importers, exporters, and policy practitioners, the judgment restores confidence that commercial decisions taken under existing legal regimes will not be undone by informal or premature executive action.