Platinum Jewellery Import Restrictions Cannot Apply To Goods Arriving Before Gazette Publication: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Monday ruled that new import restrictions cannot apply to platinum jewellery that had already arrived in India before the restrictions were officially published, even if the importer files customs documents later.

Relying on apex court's ruling in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India ,a Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil held., “The Notification acquired the force of law only on 2nd April 2026 at 20:52:58 hours, and it can be validly applied only to the goods dispatched from the country of export after its publication and not to goods already dispatched and arrived in India prior to its publication,” 

The dispute arose from a government notification dated April 1, 2026, that changed the import status of goods under tariff heading 7113 from “free” to “restricted”. Although dated April 1, the notification was published in the Official Gazette on April 2.

Heimerle Refinery Private Limited had imported studded platinum jewellery under five Airway Bills dated March 30 and 31, 2026. The consignments arrived in India before the notification was published. However, Customs authorities refused to clear three consignments because the revised policy required import authorisation.

The company approached the court, arguing that the date of shipment, rather than the date of customs clearance, determined which import policy applied.

The Customs authorities and the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) argued that the restrictions applied to consignments that had not been cleared before the policy change. They also relied on a DGFT Office Memorandum dated May 13, 2026, which stated that consignments not cleared before April 1 would be governed by the restricted policy, irrespective of when they arrived in India or when their Bills of Entry were filed.

Rejecting this argument, the court distinguished between the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and the Customs Act. It observed that the date of filing a Bill of Entry determines the applicable rate of customs duty under Section 15 of the Customs Act. However, the date of shipment or dispatch determines whether new import restrictions apply under the FTP.

The court relied on provisions of the FTP and the Handbook of Procedures, which define the date of import with reference to the date of shipment or dispatch from the exporting country. For air cargo, the relevant Airway Bill must reflect the date on which the goods left the last airport in the exporting country.

The bench also relied on decisions of the Gujarat and Delhi High Courts that had permitted clearance of goods arriving before the notification was published, even though the Bills of Entry were filed later. It noted that those decisions had attained finality and had been acted upon by the authorities.

The court rejected the DGFT's reliance on its subsequent Office Memorandum, holding that it could not override the FTP or retrospectively extend the restrictions to goods that had already arrived in India.

“The said OM has no statutory force and cannot override the FTP. The OM is not even subordinate legislation, and no authority of law is pointed out in exercise of which the said OM is issued,” the court observed.

Allowing the petition, the court directed Customs authorities to release the three remaining consignments expeditiously. It also directed them to permit the company to submit the Bill of Entry for one consignment without insisting on import authorisation.

For Petitioner (Heimerle Refinery Private Limited): Senior Advocate Prakash Shah, along with Advocates Jas Sanghavi and Linzy Sharan, instructed by PDS Legal.

For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Customs Authorities): Advocates Maya Majumdar and Abhishek R. Mishra.For Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (Union of India/DGFT): Advocates Jitendra B. Mishra and Ashutosh Misra.