The Bombay High Court has held that restrictions imposed on the import of specified platinum jewellery cannot be applied to goods dispatched from the exporting country before the relevant notification came into force, even if the Bills of Entry were filed after its publication.
A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil allowed a writ petition challenging the Customs authorities’ refusal to clear imported studded platinum jewellery following a change in the import policy from “Free” to “Restricted”.
The dispute arose after the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) issued Notification No. 02/2026-27 dated April 1, 2026, amending the import policy for goods falling under CTH 7113. The notification was published in the Official Gazette on April 2, 2026, at 8:52 pm. The petitioner’s consignments had been dispatched before the notification’s publication and had arrived in India before the change took effect, but the Bills of Entry for clearance were filed subsequently.
The Customs authorities refused clearance on the ground that the goods were subject to the revised restricted import policy. The petitioner contended that the date of shipment or dispatch, as specified under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and the Handbook of Procedures (HBP), governed the applicability of the import restrictions.
Accepting the petitioner’s submissions, the Court held that the relevant date for determining the applicability of a change in the import policy must be determined in accordance with the FTP and the HBP, rather than the date of filing the Bill of Entry or clearance for home consumption under the Customs Act, 1962.
The Bench observed that the notification acquired the force of law only upon its publication in the Official Gazette and could not apply to goods that had already been dispatched and arrived in India before its publication. It distinguished the principles governing the date of import under the Customs Act from those applicable under the FTP.
The Court also held that the DGFT’s Office Memorandum dated May 13, 2026, which sought to apply the revised restrictions irrespective of the date of arrival or filing of Bills of Entry, had no statutory force and could not override the FTP. The Court observed that such a clarification could not effectively give retrospective operation to the notification.
The Court emphasised that the authorities must maintain consistency in applying the law to similarly situated importers.
The Court accordingly allowed the petition, holding that the revised import restrictions could not be applied to the petitioner’s consignments that had been dispatched before the notification came into force.
