Heimerle Refinery Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court, in Heimerle Refinery Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors., considered the applicability of DGFT Notification No. 02/2026-27 dated 1 April 2026 to imported goods that had arrived within Indian territory before its publication. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam granted interim relief to the petitioner-company against communications dated 15 April 2026 and 16 April 2026. The dispute concerned whether the restrictions introduced through the notification could be applied to consignments imported before its publication or to consignments for which the relevant import documents were lodged subsequently. After considering the Supreme Court decisions in Union of India Vs G.S. Chatha Rice Mills and Viraj Impex Private Limited Vs Union of India and Another, together with the interpretation adopted by the Gujarat High Court, the Bench found that the petitioner had established sufficient grounds for interim protection.
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani, challenged the application of the notification to its imported consignments. The petitioner submitted that a similar situation had already been considered and that it had been held not to be covered by the notification dated 1 April 2026. The argument raised an important question concerning the effective date of delegated legislation and whether import restrictions could be applied to goods that had already entered India before the notification became enforceable. The petitioner relied upon Union of India Vs G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, reported in 2020 (374) E.L.T. 289 (SC), and Viraj Impex Private Limited Vs Union of India and Another, reported in (2026) SCC OnLine SC 101. These authorities concern the legal consequences of publication of statutory notifications and the limits on their retrospective application.
The Revenue, represented by Advocate Jitendra B. Mishra, opposed the petitioner’s position. According to the Revenue’s submissions, the relevant bills of lading concerning the imported articles were lodged only on 10 April 2026 and 17 April 2026. The Revenue therefore contended that the consignments were covered by the restrictions introduced through the notification dated 1 April 2026. The High Court considered the rival submissions but did not finally decide the notification’s applicability or the legality of the challenged communications. Instead, it examined whether the circumstances warranted protective directions pending further consideration.
The Court directed the petitioner-company to furnish an ITC Bond of its director for the release of consignments that arrived on 1 April 2026 under Bill of Entry Nos. 8411463 and 8418268. For the consignments covered by Bill of Entry No. 8590663 dated 10 April 2026 and Bill of Entry No. 8735308 dated 17 April 2026, the Court directed provisional release against a bank guarantee for 50% of the total value of those two consignments, supported by an ITC Bond for the remaining 50%. The order therefore prescribed different security conditions for the two categories of consignments. The Court did not determine their monetary values or order unconditional release of all goods.
The Bench directed the respondents to file their reply within four weeks and listed the matter for 23 June 2026. The order dated 5 May 2026 was expressly an interim order and did not constitute a final determination that every consignment imported before or after the notification date was exempt from its operation. Its immediate significance lies in the conditional protection granted to the importer while the disputed application of DGFT import restrictions remained under consideration. The case also highlights the importance of the exact timing of publication of import-policy notifications, documentary evidence concerning arrival and importation of goods, and the appropriate security conditions for provisional release during pending litigation.
Subsequent Supreme Court Proceedings: In SLP(C) No. 18946/2026, the Supreme Court permitted Heimerle Refinery to apply under the DGFT Office Memorandum dated 13 May 2026 and directed independent consideration by the competent authority, without being influenced by the observations in the impugned High Court order.
Cases Discussed
1. Union of India Vs G.S. Chatha Rice Mills (Supreme Court); 2020 (374) E.L.T. 289 (SC) — Relied upon by the petitioner concerning the commencement and enforceability of customs notifications. The decision examined the significance of the precise time of publication in the electronic Official Gazette and the prohibition against unauthorised retrospective operation of delegated legislation.
2. Viraj Impex Private Limited Vs Union of India and Another (Supreme Court); (2026) SCC OnLine SC 101 — Relied upon concerning the requirement of publication of statutory notifications before they acquire legal force. The Bombay High Court considered this decision while determining whether the petitioner had established a prima facie case for interim relief.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The writ petitioner, namely, Heimerle Refinery Private Limited is aggrieved by the communications dated 15th April 2026 and 16th April 2026 issued by the respondent-authority.
2. The issue involved in this writ petition is “Whether the imported goods which arrive within the territorial jurisdiction of India before the Notification No.02/2026-27 was published on 1st April 2026 shall be covered under the said notification. Mr.Vikram Nankani, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner refers to the decisions of Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, 2020(374) E.L.T. 289 (SC) and Viraj Impex Private Limited v. Union of India and Another (2026) SCC Online SC 101.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner-company submits that in a similar situation the petitioner-company has been held not covered under the notification dated 1st April 2026.
2. Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, the learned counsel for the Revenue has, however, stated that the petitioner-company after bills of lading in respect of the imported articles were lodged only on 10th April 2026 and 17th April 2026 and, therefore, such goods shall be covered under the notification dated 1st April 2026
3. Having regard to the interpretation made by the Gujrat High Court and the decisions in G. S. Chatha Rice Mills (supra) and Viraj Impex Private Limited (supra), we are of the opinion that the petitioner-company has been able to make out a case for interim relief. We, therefore, pass the following order :-
(i) The petitioner-company shall furnish ITC Bond of the Director of the company for release of the consignments which arrived on 1st April 2026 vide Bill of Entry Nos.8411463 and 8418268.
ii. The consignments vide Bill of Entry Nos.8590663 dated 10th April 2026 and 8735308 dated 17th April 2026 shall be provisionally released to the petitioner-company on furnishing 50% of the total value of these two consignments through bank guarantee and supported by ITC Bond for remaining 50% of the value.
6. Post these matters on 23rd June 2026.
7. Reply to be filed within four weeks.
