Delegated legislation needs lawful publication before taking effect, so pre-notification consignments were cleared under the earlier import policy.

Delegated legislation was held to take effect only upon lawful publication and, absent clear statutory authority, could not operate retrospectively. Applying that principle, the Court found that Notification No. 02/2026-27 did not apply to consignments that had arrived in India before the notification was published in the Official Gazette, so the goods were entitled to clearance under the pre-existing import policy. The Court also held that the absence of an express challenge to the notification and the availability of an alternative policy remedy did not bar relief where the real dispute was the notification's applicability to the consignments in question. The petition succeeded, and the goods were to be released accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Notification No. 02/2026-27 dated 01.04.2026 could be applied to consignments that had already arrived in India before its publication in the Official Gazette; (ii) whether the objections based on absence of a challenge to the notification and availability of an alternative remedy could defeat the petitioner's claim for clearance.

Issue (i): Whether Notification No. 02/2026-27 dated 01.04.2026 could be applied to consignments that had already arrived in India before its publication in the Official Gazette.

Analysis: The binding principle applied was that delegated legislation takes effect only upon publication in the manner prescribed by law and cannot operate retrospectively unless the parent statute clearly authorises such operation. The Court relied on the governing rule that publication in the Official Gazette is a condition precedent to enforceability, and on the further principle that the precise time of digital publication is material where rights are affected by a time-stamped notification. On the admitted facts, the last consignment had arrived before the notification was published, while the goods were earlier in the free category.

Conclusion: The notification did not apply to the petitioner's consignments and the goods were entitled to be cleared under the pre-existing policy.

Issue (ii): Whether the objections based on absence of a challenge to the notification and availability of an alternative remedy could defeat the petitioner's claim for clearance.

Analysis: The Court held that a specific prayer to strike down the notification was not necessary where the real controversy was whether the notification applied at all to the petitioner's imports. It also found that the availability of a policy relaxation mechanism did not preclude consideration of the petition because, on the petitioner's case, the notification had no application to the consignments in question.

Conclusion: The objections were rejected and did not bar relief.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, and the authorities were required to process the goods for release in accordance with the pre-notification legal position.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegated legislation becomes enforceable only upon lawful publication, and without clear statutory authority it cannot be applied retrospectively to consignments that had already crystallised under the earlier import regime before such publication.

---