Introduction:

The Delhi High Court recently intervened in a trade dispute concerning the import of Soda Ash, issuing a strong directive to the Customs authorities to ensure the strict implementation of the Minimum Import Price (MIP). The order, passed by a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, came in the matter titled Alkali Manufacturers Association of India v. UoI (W.P.(C) 11521/2025). The petitioner, the Alkali Manufacturers Association of India (represented by Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Rishabh Parikh, and Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal), approached the court alleging that the Customs Department was permitting the import of Soda Ash at prices below the MIP stipulated by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), consequently harming domestic industries. The DGFT’s mandate, specified in Notification No. 46 of 2024-25 and Notification No. 23 of 2025-26, had set the MIP at Rs. 20,108/- per metric ton for Soda Ash, a protective measure effective until 31st December, 2025. The Court’s decision, while ultimately disposing of the plea based on the Customs Department’s undertaking, included a categorical warning that cemented the necessity of adherence to the trade policy notifications.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner (Alkali Manufacturers Association of India):

The Alkali Manufacturers Association of India presented its case based on the necessity of protecting the domestic industry from alleged non-compliance with trade regulations.

• Allegation of Undervalued Imports: The primary contention of the Petitioner was that the Customs Department, the enforcing authority at the ports, was failing to implement the MIP in its letter and spirit. They alleged that the Customs Department was “permitting imports at a price below the MIP” of Rs. 20,108/- per metric ton.
• Adverse Impact on Domestic Industry: The Petitioner argued that this alleged lapse in enforcement was leading to an adverse impact on other domestic industries. The influx of cheaper, undervalued imports of Soda Ash effectively undermined the protective measure instituted by the DGFT, making it difficult for domestic manufacturers to compete and sustain operations.
• Need for Court Intervention: The Association sought the court’s intervention to compel the Customs authorities to strictly enforce the notifications issued by the DGFT, thereby fulfilling the intended objective of the MIP, which is to ensure a fair trading environment for the domestic alkali sector.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents (UoI/DGFT and Customs Authorities):

The Respondents, primarily the Customs Department (represented by Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC, along with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Ms. Sanidhya Sharma, and others) and the Union of India/DGFT (represented by Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, Mr. Vivek Nagar, Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Ms. Esha Kumar), defended the implementation process and clarified the nature of the alleged violations.

• Affidavit of Strict Implementation: The Customs Department filed a sworn affidavit refuting the claims of non-compliance. They provided an explicit undertaking to the Court, stating that the DGFT notifications were “being strictly implemented” for all imports that had Bills of Entry/Bills of Lading dated after the issuance of the respective notifications.
• Clarification on Exceptions: The Customs Department addressed the specific instances cited by the Petitioner. They clarified that the imports allegedly permitted below the MIP were exceptions that fell outside the mandatory purview of the notifications. These exceptions involved consignments “where the bills of entry/bills of lading were prior and the import took place after the issuance of Notification.” In essence, they argued that the relevant date for applying the MIP was the date of import/export, which is governed by the date of the bill of lading or shipping bill, not the date of physical arrival, as per the established ‘Legal Framework and Trade Facilitation’.
• No Intentional Violation: The department sought to convey to the court that there was no intentional malfeasance or wilful violation of the DGFT’s orders. They maintained that their actions were consistent with the legal framework governing international trade, which relies on the date of pre-shipment documents to determine the applicable trade policy.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale:

The Delhi High Court, after considering the submissions and particularly the affidavit filed by the Customs Department, decided to dispose of the plea but not without issuing a strong mandate regarding future compliance.

1. Acceptance of Customs’ Undertaking (Prima Facie Compliance):

The Court was largely satisfied with the explanation and undertaking provided by the Customs Department. It acknowledged the department’s reliance on the ‘Legal Framework and Trade Facilitation’ principles, where the applicability of import conditions is typically determined by the date of the Bill of Lading or Shipping Bill. Since the Customs Department clarified that the exceptions cited by the Petitioner related to consignments with pre-notification Bills of Lading, the Court was of the view that there “appeared to be no intention to permit violation of the notifications.” The Customs Department’s commitment that the notifications are being strictly implemented for all new imports effectively addressed the immediate grievance.

2. Clear Directive for Strict Implementation:

Despite disposing of the petition, the Court issued a categorical and unequivocal warning to all Customs authorities. The division bench gave “clear directions to all the Customs Authorities… to ensure that the Notification No. 46 of 2024-25 along with Notification No. 23 of 2025-26 shall be implemented strictly in letter and spirit.”

3. Warning of Stringent Action:

Crucially, the Court attached a severe consequence to any potential lapse in compliance, underscoring the seriousness of the DGFT’s MIP mandate. The order stated: “If any Commissionerate of Customs, are found permitting imports in violation thereof, would be liable for stringent action in accordance with law.” This warning serves as a significant deterrent and holds the highest echelons of the Customs Department accountable for the ground-level implementation of the protective trade policy. The judgment thus reinforced the supremacy of the DGFT notifications and the imperative role of the Customs authorities in upholding India’s trade defense measures. The disposal of the writ petition was conditional on the expectation that this strict enforcement would be maintained until the MIP’s expiry on December 31, 2025.