Retrospective operation of import restrictions denied where goods arrived before effective publication; clearance allowed without authorisation.

A restrictive import notification does not become enforceable against goods already in transit or already arrived before its legally effective publication, unless the parent statute expressly authorises retrospective operation. The Gujarat HC noted that the consignment had landed at Ahmedabad Airport before the notification was digitally signed and promulgated, and that subordinate legislation must be made known through the publication mechanism prescribed by the statute and the Official Gazette. The notification's stated immediate effect and displacement of transitional benefits could not operate backwards. Clearance was therefore due without insisting on import authorisation for that shipment, subject to the remaining official procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the import restriction notification, though issued to take immediate effect, could be applied to goods that had already arrived before its digital signing and publication, and whether the petitioners were entitled to clearance of the consignment without import authorisation.

Analysis: The chronology of the transaction was undisputed. The goods had already landed at Ahmedabad Airport before the notification was digitally signed and promulgated. The governing law requires restrictive import notifications to be made known in the manner prescribed by the parent statute and through publication in the Official Gazette. A subordinate legislative instrument cannot acquire enforceable force before its legally recognised publication, and it cannot be given retrospective operation unless the statute authorises that result. The notification itself stated that it would operate with immediate effect and override transitional benefits, but that consequence could not extend backwards to goods already in transit and already arrived before its publication took effect.

Conclusion: The notification could not be applied retrospectively to the petitioners' consignment, and the respondents were not justified in insisting upon import authorisation for that shipment. The petitioners were entitled to clearance of the goods, subject to the remaining official procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A restrictive delegated notification becomes enforceable only upon its legally effective publication and, absent statutory authorisation, cannot retrospectively burden goods that had already entered transit or arrived before such publication.

---