M/S. Glamex vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court, noting that similar writ petitions of identical nature had been considered by the same bench, decided to dispose of the instant writ petition at the admission stage. The Court ordered the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods, subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week of the order. The goods are to be released within four weeks of the enhanced duty payment. The Court clarified that this order does not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. It also stated that any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges would be considered objectively. Additionally, the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods and maintain records of sales to customers, including prices and transaction details, for the respondent authorities. The adjudicating authority is to decide the matter without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Facts

M/s Glamex, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated 20.11.2025, issued by the 4th respondent (Joint Commissioner of Customs). The petitioner sought the release of their imported consignment of 104 units of Multi-Function Devices, imported under Bill of Entry No. 5653187 dated 12.11.2025. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. The respondents are the Union of India and various customs authorities. The petitioner also filed an interim application seeking the release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential severe loss and hardship.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 20.11.2025, issued by the 4th respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and violated the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. They sought the immediate release of their imported consignment. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, the context implies that the customs authorities seized the goods, presumably based on certain grounds which were not detailed in the provided text. The court's order suggests that the adjudicating authority's proceedings were permitted to continue.