#VirajImpexPvt.Ltd. – 𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 22.01.2026

Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Validity of Government Notifications

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

On January 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr.  (2026 INSC 80), addressing a critical issue regarding the interpretation of the term “date of this Notification” in the context of a government-imposed Minimum Import Price (MIP) on certain steel products. This judgment has significant implications for importers, exporters, and policymakers, as it clarifies the enforceability of notifications under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

Background of the Case 

The appellants, private limited companies engaged in the import and trading of steel products, challenged a Notification issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) on February 5, 2016. The Notification introduced a Minimum Import Price (MIP) for specified steel products under Chapter 72 of the Indian Trade Clarification (Harmonized System), 2012. While the Notification was uploaded on the DGFT website on February 5, 2016, it was officially published in the Official Gazette on February 11, 2016.

The appellants had entered into firm sale contracts with exporters from China and South Korea between January 29, 2016, and February 4, 2016, and opened irrevocable Letters of Credit (LCs) on February 5, 2016. Anticipating restrictions, they applied for registration of their LCs under transitional protection provided by paragraph 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) on February 8, 2016.

The appellants argued that the Notification, published in the Official Gazette on February 11, 2016, could not be applied retroactively to imports covered by LCs opened before its publication. They sought to quash the Notification or, alternatively, a declaration that the Notification did not apply to their LCs.

High Court Judgment 

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appellants’ writ petitions on December 21, 2018. While the High Court acknowledged that the Notification became effective on February 11, 2016, it held that the uploading of the Notification on February 5, 2016, constituted sufficient notice to bind importers whose LCs were not opened before that date. The High Court also ruled that the Notification was not an act of delegated legislation.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the central issue: whether the term “date of this Notification” in paragraph 2 of the Notification referred to February 5, 2016 (the date of uploading) or February 11, 2016 (the date of publication in the Official Gazette). The Court’s analysis focused on the statutory framework and the legal principles governing the enforceability of delegated legislation.

Key Points from the Judgment:

Publication in the Official Gazette is Mandatory: The Court emphasized that delegated legislation, unlike parliamentary enactments, is framed without open legislative debate. Therefore, publication in the Official Gazette is essential to ensure accessibility, notice, accountability, and legal enforceability. The Notification itself acknowledged its incompleteness by stating it was “to be published in the Gazette of India.”
Legal Consequences of Publication: The Court held that a Notification acquires the force of law only upon its publication in the Official Gazette. Until such publication, the Notification remains an intention and does not impose legal obligations or curtail rights.
Interpretation of “Date of Notification”: The Court ruled that the expression “date of this Notification” in paragraph 2 of the Notification must be construed as the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, i.e., February 11, 2016.
Relevance of FTP Paragraph 1.05(b): The Court clarified that paragraph 1.05(b) of the FTP, which provides transitional protection for imports under LCs established before the imposition of restrictions, is integral to paragraph 2 of the Notification. The appellants, having opened their LCs before February 11, 2016, were entitled to the benefit of this transitional provision.
Rule of Law and Commercial Confidence: The Court underscored that imposing trade restrictions based on an unpublished Notification would undermine commercial confidence and violate the Rule of Law. Transparency and predictability are essential in regulating foreign trade.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr.  sets a significant precedent in the interpretation of delegated legislation under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. By holding that a Notification becomes enforceable only upon its publication in the Official Gazette, the Court reaffirmed the importance of transparency, legal certainty, and adherence to statutory requirements in the exercise of delegated legislative power.

This decision is a victory for importers and exporters, as it ensures that trade restrictions cannot be imposed retroactively based on unpublished Notifications. It also serves as a reminder to policymakers and regulatory authorities to strictly comply with statutory publication requirements to uphold the principles of the Rule of Law and protect commercial interests.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel