![Trade Notification Binds Only From Gazette Publication; Prior Letters of Credit Exempt From Steel MIP: Supreme Court in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2026 INSC 80]](/assets/images/article-gst.svg)
Quick Answer: A notification under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 acquires the force of law only on its publication in the Official Gazette, and the words "date of this notification" mean the date of that publication. Uploading on the DGFT website is not enough. Importers who opened irrevocable letters of credit before the Gazette publication on 11.02.2016 are protected from the Minimum Import Price on steel.
In Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026 INSC 80), the Supreme Court held that Notification No. 38/2015-2020, which introduced a Minimum Import Price (MIP) on specified steel products, became operative only on its publication in the Official Gazette on 11.02.2016, not on its uploading on 05.02.2016, so that the transitional exemption in para 2 for letters of credit "entered into before the date of this notification" covered letters of credit opened on 05.02.2016 (paras 19, 22–23). A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment and held the appellants entitled to the protection of para 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy (para 24).
Status: Delhi High Court common order and judgment dated 21.12.2018 in a batch of writ petitions quashed and set aside; appellants held entitled to protection of para 1.05(b) of the FTP 2015-2020; appeals allowed; no costs (paras 24–25).
Headnote: Date of a Trade Notification and Gazette Publication
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – Section 3 – Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 – Paras 1.02, 1.05(b) and 2.01 – DGFT Notification No. 38/2015-2020 – Minimum Import Price on iron and steel – Delegated legislation – Publication in the Official Gazette – Uploading on website – "Date of this notification" – Transitional protection for irrevocable letters of credit.
Held: (i) Publication in the Gazette is not an empty formality; it is the act by which an executive decision is transformed into law, and strict compliance with publication requirements is a condition precedent to enforceability of delegated legislation (para 16).
(ii) Where the parent statute prescribes a mode of publication, that mode must be strictly followed; Section 3 of the Act requires an order published in the Official Gazette (paras 17–19).
(iii) The Notification could not acquire the force of law before its Gazette publication on 11.02.2016; its own endorsement "to be published in the Gazette of India" acknowledged that it was incomplete until then (para 19).
(iv) The executive cannot introduce an alternative mode of promulgation and attach legal consequences to it, and a Notification cannot operate in a fragmented manner (para 19).
(v) Para 2 of the Notification incorporates para 1.05(b) of the FTP, which is neither irrelevant nor in conflict with it; denying its transitional benefit would undermine the object of the Act and certainty in trade (paras 20–21).
(vi) "Date of this Notification" in para 2 means the date of Gazette publication; the MIP cannot apply to imports under irrevocable letters of credit opened before 11.02.2016 by importers who complied with para 1.05(b) (paras 22–23).
(paras 16–25)
Case Details: Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026 INSC 80)
Final Outcome: Civil Appeals allowed; Delhi High Court's common order and judgment set aside; appellants entitled to protection of para 1.05(b) of the FTP; no order as to costs (paras 24–25).
Case: Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 80
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 1979 of 2019) with Civil Appeals No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2297, 2778 and 1977 of 2019)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 21 January 2026
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe (author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – Section 3; Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 – Paras 1.02, 1.05(b) and 2.01; DGFT Notification No. 38/2015-2020 dated 05.02.2016 (published in the Official Gazette on 11.02.2016)
Impugned Order: Common order and judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 21.12.2018 in a batch of writ petitions, dismissing the appellants' challenge (paras 2, 8)
Source: Supreme Court of India
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- Law, to bind, must first exist, and to exist it must be made known in the manner ordained by the legislature (para 16).
- A notification under Section 3 of the Act acquires the force of law only on publication in the Official Gazette (paras 19, 23).
- Uploading the notification on the DGFT website did not give it legal effect; the executive cannot substitute another mode of promulgation (paras 5, 19).
- The expression "date of this Notification" in para 2 means the date of Gazette publication, i.e., 11.02.2016 (paras 22–23).
- Para 1.05(b) of the FTP is incorporated in the Notification and is not in conflict with it (para 20).
- Importers who opened irrevocable letters of credit before 11.02.2016 and complied with para 1.05(b) are exempt from the MIP (para 22).
Brief Facts of the Case
The appellants import and trade in mild steel items such as hot rolled coils, cold rolled coils, hot rolled steel plates and pre-painted steel coils, which were freely importable before February 2016. Between 29.01.2016 and 04.02.2016 they entered into firm contracts with exporters from China and South Korea and, on 05.02.2016, opened irrevocable letters of credit (paras 3–4).
On the same day, 05.02.2016, the DGFT uploaded Notification No. 38/2015-2020 introducing an MIP on specified steel products, bearing the endorsement "To be published in the Official Gazette of India". It was published in the Official Gazette on 11.02.2016. On 08.02.2016 the appellants applied for registration of their letters of credit under para 1.05(b) of the FTP (paras 5–6).
The Delhi High Court held that the Notification operated from 11.02.2016, but that its uploading on 05.02.2016 was sufficient notice to bind importers whose letters of credit were not opened before 05.02.2016. It also held that the Notification was not delegated legislation, and dismissed the writ petitions (paras 7–8).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the expression "date of Notification" in para 2 of the Notification can mean any date other than the date of its publication in the Official Gazette (para 12).
- Whether para 1.05(b) of the FTP is relevant to, or in conflict with, para 2 of the Notification (paras 11, 20).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Rival positions (paras 9–11): The appellants argued that the Notification was non-est before 11.02.2016 and that their letters of credit, opened on 05.02.2016, were protected. The Union contended that although the Notification came into effect on 11.02.2016, the "date of Notification" stayed fixed at 05.02.2016, much as an Act may be enacted on one date and brought into force on another.
Publication as a condition of law (paras 16–18): Delegated legislation is framed without open legislative debate, so Gazette publication ensures notice to those governed and accountability in the exercise of delegated power. Relying on Johnson v. Sargant and Sons, Harla v. State of Rajasthan and B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that publication is indispensable to enforceability and that a statutory mode of publication must be strictly followed.
Application to the Notification (para 19): Section 3 of the Act requires an order published in the Official Gazette. The Notification could not have the force of law before 11.02.2016, and its own endorsement confirmed it was yet to be published. It is born only on Gazette publication, and only from that date can rights be curtailed or obligations imposed.
Para 1.05(b) of the FTP (paras 20–21): Para 2 of the Notification expressly incorporates para 1.05(b), so the plea that the policy was irrelevant or in conflict failed. Denying its transitional benefit would defeat the plain language of the FTP, undermine the object of the Act and offend the Rule of Law.
Meaning of "date of this Notification" (paras 22–23): Once the Notification became operative only on 11.02.2016, the expression in para 2 must mean the date of Gazette publication. The appellants, having opened irrevocable letters of credit before that date and complied with para 1.05(b), are entitled to the transitional protection.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Common order and judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 21.12.2018 quashed and set aside (para 24).
- Appellants held entitled to protection of para 1.05(b) of the FTP (para 24).
- MIP introduced with effect from 11.02.2016 cannot be applied to the appellants' imports under irrevocable letters of credit opened before that date (para 22).
- Appeals allowed; no order as to costs (para 25).
Legal Principle Laid Down
A notification issued under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 acquires the force of law only on its publication in the Official Gazette, and the expression "date of this Notification" in such a notification means the date of that publication. Uploading on a website or any other mode chosen by the executive cannot substitute for the statutory mode of promulgation (paras 19, 22–23).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Johnson v. Sargant and Sons, (1918) 1 KB 101 – Relied upon – subordinate legislation commences when published in a manner reasonably calculated to bring it to the notice of those affected. Discussed at para 17.
- Harla v. State of Rajasthan, 1951 SCC 936 – Relied upon – natural justice requires a law to be promulgated or published before it becomes operative. Discussed at para 17.
- B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, (1987) 1 SCC 658 – Relied upon – publication indispensable to enforceability; statutory mode of publication must be strictly followed. Discussed at para 18.
- Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 673; Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, (2021) 2 SCC 209; Nabha Power Ltd. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., (2025) 5 SCC 353 – Followed – position on publication of subordinate legislation reiterated. Discussed at para 18.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 16: "Law, to bind, must first exist. And to exist, it must be made known in the manner ordained by the legislature."
Para 16: "The requirement of publication in the Gazette, is therefore not an empty formality. It is an act by which an executive decision is transformed into law."
Para 19: "Once the legislature has prescribed the specified mode of promulgation, the executive cannot introduce an alternative mode and attribute legal consequences to it. A Notification cannot operate in a fragmented manner."
Para 21: "The imposition of fiscal or trade burdens on the basis of an unpublished Notification would erode commercial confidence and offend the Rule of Law, the result which the court must steadfastly guard against."
Para 22: "Once it is held that Notification became operative only on 11.02.2016, the expression ‘date of this Notification’ occurring in para 2 thereof, must necessarily be construed to mean the date of its publication in the Official Gazette."
Para 23: "We accordingly hold that the Notification issued under Section 3 of the Act acquires the force of law only upon its publication in the Official Gazette. The expression ‘date of this Notification’ must necessarily mean the date of such publication."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For importers and exporters: Restrictions under Section 3 of the FTDR Act bind only from Gazette publication; letters of credit opened before that date can claim transitional protection under para 1.05(b) of the FTP (paras 19, 22).
- For the DGFT and Central Government: Uploading on a website cannot substitute for Gazette publication when the parent Act prescribes it (para 19).
- For customs and trade disputes: Cut-off dates such as "date of this notification" in trade notifications are to be read as the date of Gazette publication (paras 22–23).
- For advisers: Importers must still comply with the procedural conditions of para 1.05(b), including registration of the letter of credit, to claim the benefit (paras 15, 22).
FAQs on Date of a Trade Notification and Gazette Publication
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India?
It held that the MIP notification on steel took effect only on Gazette publication on 11.02.2016 and that importers with irrevocable letters of credit opened before that date are protected (paras 22–24).
2. Is uploading a notification on the DGFT website enough to make it binding?
No. Section 3 of the Act requires publication in the Official Gazette, and the executive cannot attach legal consequences to an alternative mode (para 19).
3. What does "date of this notification" mean?
It means the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette (paras 22–23).
4. What is para 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy?
It permits imports or exports that become restricted to continue under irrevocable letters of credit established before the restriction, subject to registration with the Regional Authority within 15 days (para 15).
5. Did the Court accept that para 1.05(b) conflicts with the Notification?
No. The Notification itself incorporates para 1.05(b), so the plea of conflict or irrelevance was rejected (para 20).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 80, Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Minimum Import Price, MIP on steel, Notification No. 38/2015-2020, Section 3 Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992, para 1.05(b) Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, publication in Official Gazette, date of notification, delegated legislation, letters of credit, transitional protection, DGFT, B.K. Srinivasan, Harla v. State of Rajasthan, Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Supreme Court judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).