The Supreme Court has held that a notification imposing Minimum Import Price (MIP) on certain steel products becomes legally operative only from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, and not from the date it was uploaded on a government website.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe granted relief to steel importers who had opened irrevocable Letters of Credit (LCs) prior to such publication.
The appellants, including Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. and other importers, are engaged in the import and trading of mild steel products such as hot rolled coils, cold rolled coils, steel plates, and pre-painted steel coils. Until early February 2016, these items were freely importable under Chapter 72 of the Indian Trade Classification (Harmonised System) in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015–2020.
Between 29 January and 4 February 2016, the importers entered into firm contracts with overseas suppliers from China and South Korea and opened irrevocable Letters of Credit on 5 February 2016. On the same day, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) uploaded Notification No. 38/2015–2020 on its website, introducing a Minimum Import Price for 173 steel tariff lines. However, the notification itself stated that it was “to be published in the Gazette of India” and was actually published in the Official Gazette only on 11 February 2016.
Anticipating restrictions, the importers applied on 8 February 2016 for registration of their LCs under the transitional protection clause contained in Paragraph 1.05(b) of the FTP.
While the Delhi High Court accepted that the notification would formally operate from 11 February 2016, it nevertheless held that uploading the notification on the DGFT website on 5 February 2016 constituted sufficient notice. On this reasoning, the High Court denied the benefit of transitional protection to importers whose Letters of Credit were not opened before 5 February 2016 and dismissed the writ petitions challenging the MIP notification.
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the expression “date of this Notification” used in Paragraph 2 of the MIP notification could be interpreted to mean a date prior to its publication in the Official Gazette, namely the date of its online upload.
The Court emphatically reiterated that delegated legislation, to have the force of law, must be published in the manner prescribed by the parent statute. Referring to Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the Bench noted that any order regulating imports or exports must be published in the Official Gazette.
The Court underscored that publication is not a mere formality but a constitutional requirement ensuring notice, accessibility, and accountability. Until publication in the Gazette, a notification remains an executive intention and does not mature into a binding legal instrument. Uploading a draft or proposed notification on a website, the Court held, cannot substitute the statutorily mandated mode of promulgation.
Relying on settled precedents, the Bench observed that unpublished delegated legislation cannot impose burdens or curtail rights of citizens. Any contrary interpretation would undermine the rule of law and create uncertainty in commercial transactions.
The Court further held that Paragraph 2 of the notification expressly incorporated Paragraph 1.05(b) of the FTP, which provides transitional protection where imports are subjected to subsequent restrictions, provided irrevocable Letters of Credit were established before the date of imposition of such restriction.
Once it was held that the MIP notification came into force only on 11 February 2016, the expression “date of this Notification” necessarily had to be construed as the date of its Gazette publication. Since the appellants had opened irrevocable Letters of Credit prior to that date and complied with the procedural requirements under the FTP, they were entitled to exemption from the MIP.
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court quashed the Delhi High Court’s judgment and held that a notification issued under Section 3 of the FTDR Act acquires legal force only upon publication in the Official Gazette. The phrase “date of this Notification” refers to the date of Gazette publication, not the date of website upload. The Minimum Import Price introduced by the notification could not be applied to imports backed by irrevocable Letters of Credit opened prior to 11 February 2016.
The Court granted the benefit of transitional protection to the importers and made no order as to costs
Case Details
Case Title: Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI
Case No.: S.L.P. (C) NO. 1979 OF 2019
Date: 21/01/2026
Read More: No Service Tax Payable on Residential Construction Prior to 1 July 2010: CESTAT
