Hiemerle Refinery Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court of India, in Hiemerle Refinery Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors., passed an interim order in SLP(C) No. 18946/2026 arising from the Bombay High Court’s order dated 5 May 2026 in Writ Petition (L) No. 15901/2026. The dispute before the High Court concerned whether Notification No. 02/2026-27 dated 1 April 2026 applied to imported goods that had arrived in India before its publication. Hiemerle Refinery challenged communications dated 15 and 16 April 2026. Before the High Court, it referred to Supreme Court decisions concerning the commencement and enforceability of import-related notifications, while the Revenue argued that the relevant bills of lading had been lodged on 10 and 17 April 2026. The High Court granted interim relief: consignments under Bill of Entry Nos. 8411463 and 8418268 were to be released on furnishing an ITC bond of the company’s director, while consignments under Bill of Entry Nos. 8590663 and 8735308 were to be provisionally released against a bank guarantee for 50% of their total value and an ITC bond for the remaining 50%. In the Supreme Court, pending disposal of the special leave petition, the petitioner was permitted to apply under the Office Memorandum dated 13 May 2026. The competent authority could consider and dispose of that application without being influenced by observations in the impugned High Court order. The Supreme Court directed that the authority’s decision could be placed before it at the next hearing and listed the matter for 17 August 2026. The Supreme Court did not decide the notification’s applicability or finally determine the validity of the High Court’s interim conditions.
Dispute Over Applicability of Import Notification
In Writ Petition (L) No. 15901 of 2026, Heimerle Refinery Private Limited challenged communications dated 15 and 16 April 2026. The Bombay High Court identified the issue as whether goods arriving within India’s territorial jurisdiction before publication of Notification No. 02/2026-27 on 1 April 2026 would be covered by that notification. This issue was before the High Court; the supplied Supreme Court order did not adjudicate it.
Petitioner’s Submissions Before the Bombay High Court
Senior counsel for the petitioner referred to 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. Counsel also submitted that, in a similar situation, the petitioner-company had been held not covered by the notification dated 1 April 2026. These were submissions recorded in the High Court order, not independent findings in the supplied Supreme Court order.
Revenue’s Submissions Before the Bombay High Court
Counsel for the Revenue stated that bills of lading concerning the imported articles were lodged only on 10 and 17 April 2026 and, therefore, contended that the goods were covered by the notification dated 1 April 2026.
Bombay High Court Granted Conditional Interim Relief
On 5 May 2026, the Bombay High Court considered the interpretation made by the Gujarat High Court and the decisions in G.S. Chatha Rice Mills and Viraj Impex. It held that the petitioner had made out a case for interim relief. The High Court ordered release of consignments that arrived on 1 April 2026 under Bill of Entry Nos. 8411463 and 8418268 on furnishing an ITC bond of the company’s director. It also ordered provisional release of consignments under Bill of Entry Nos. 8590663 dated 10 April 2026 and 8735308 dated 17 April 2026 on furnishing a bank guarantee for 50% of their combined value and an ITC bond for the remaining 50%. The High Court directed a reply to be filed within four weeks and listed the matters for 23 June 2026.
Supreme Court Permitted Application Under Office Memorandum
In the special leave proceedings, the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner, pending disposal of its petition, to apply under the Office Memorandum dated 13 May 2026. The Court stated that the competent authority could consider and dispose of the application and that its decision must remain uninfluenced by the observations in the High Court order under challenge.
The Court further directed that the decision taken by the competent authority could be placed before it on the next hearing date. It listed the matter for 17 August 2026. The order was procedural and interim: it neither resolved the underlying import-notification question nor declared the High Court’s order correct or incorrect.
Related Bombay High Court Order: The proceedings arose from the Bombay High Court’s interim order permitting provisional release of imported consignments against bonds and a bank guarantee, dated 5 May 2026.
Cases Discussed
- Viraj Impex Private Limited v. Union of India and Another, (2026) SCC OnLine SC 101 (Supreme Court) — Cited by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court concerning the legal effect of publication of an import-related notification. The supplied Supreme Court order does not independently discuss this precedent.
- Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, 2020 (374) E.L.T. 289 (SC) (Supreme Court) — Cited before the Bombay High Court in relation to the timing and applicability of notifications. The supplied Supreme Court order does not independently discuss this precedent.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner is permitted to apply as per the Office Memorandum dated 13.05.2026. The said application may be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority. The decision to be taken shall be uninfluenced by the observations made in the order impugned before us.
2. The decision taken by the Competent Authority may be placed before us on the next date of hearing.
3. List on 17.08.2026.
