Customs duty notifications take effect only on Gazette publication, not mere issue or upload, for completed imports.

A customs duty notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act was treated as enforceable only on publication in the Official Gazette, including electronic gazette publication, and not merely on issue or internal uploading. The note also states that amended Section 25(4), which deems the date of issue as the commencement date, could not be used to sustain an enhanced levy where the notification was not yet effectively published when the import transaction was completed and duty had already been paid under protest. On that basis, the excess customs duty, including IGST, was held refundable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the customs notification enhancing duty became enforceable from the date of its issue or only from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette by electronic gazette; (ii) Whether the amended Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, treating the date of issue as the date of commencement, was arbitrary and inconsistent with Section 25(1) and liable to be disregarded for the present levy.

Issue (i): Whether the customs notification enhancing duty became enforceable from the date of its issue or only from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette by electronic gazette.

Analysis: The notification was issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 and its enforceability depended on publication in the Official Gazette. The Court accepted that mere preparation, uploading, or issue of the notification did not by itself make it operative against the importer. Following the reasoning adopted in the cited High Court decisions, the Court treated the date of electronic publication in the Gazette as the relevant date for enforcement.

Conclusion: The notification became operative only upon its publication in the Official Gazette, and not merely on the date of issue or internal uploading.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, treating the date of issue as the date of commencement, was arbitrary and inconsistent with Section 25(1) and liable to be disregarded for the present levy.

Analysis: The Court accepted the reasoning that a provision making a notification effective from the date of issue, while the scheme of Section 25(1) requires publication in the Official Gazette, creates conflict and arbitrariness in the context of customs levy. It adopted the view that the excess duty could not be retained where the notification was not yet effectively published when the import transaction was completed and duty had already been paid under protest.

Conclusion: The amended Section 25(4) was not accepted as a valid basis to sustain the enhanced levy in the present case, and the excess duty collected was held refundable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to refund the excess customs duty, including IGST, collected under protest.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs exemption or duty notification becomes enforceable only upon its publication in the Official Gazette, and it cannot be applied to completed import transactions before such publication merely because it was issued or uploaded earlier.

---