M/S. Glamex vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Glamex, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated July 19, 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (4th Respondent). The petitioner sought the release of their imported consignment of 109 units of Multi-Function Devices, imported under Bill of Entry No. 3242044 dated July 14, 2025. The petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. The High Court noted that similar writ petitions had been considered by the Bench, where seized goods were permitted to be released subject to certain conditions, including payment of enhanced duty and furnishing of a bank guarantee. The Supreme Court had previously refused to interfere with such orders but allowed adjudicating authorities to proceed with proceedings.

Held

The High Court, following its previous orders in similar cases, directed the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the seized goods. This release is subject to specific conditions. The petitioner must pay/deposit an enhanced duty amount, and upon receipt of this payment, the goods will be released within four weeks. The Customs authorities are required to quantify the duty amount within one week of receiving a copy of the order. The court clarified that this order does not prevent the Customs Department from proceeding with further adjudication proceedings as per law. Additionally, the petitioner is directed to provide a bank guarantee equivalent to 10% of the total price of the imported goods. Any application for waiver of demurrage charges will be considered objectively by the respondents. The adjudicating authority's decision will not be influenced by this conditional release order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated July 19, 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, warranting the release of the imported consignment? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction, citing a violation of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. They sought the immediate release of their imported goods. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or State respondents. However, the court's order implies that the revenue authorities were involved in the seizure and subsequent adjudication proceedings. The court's reference to previous orders where conditions were imposed for release suggests the revenue's stance likely involved seeking security for potential duties and taxes.