M/S. Glamex vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Glamex, filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated 15.05.2025, issued by the 4th respondent (Superintendent of Customs). The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 116 units of Multi-Function Devices, imported under Bill of Entry dated 03.05.2025, bearing No. 9858857. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. The Court noted that similar writ petitions had been considered by the same bench, where seized goods were permitted to be released subject to certain conditions. The Court referred to a previous order in W.P.No.12489 of 2025, which involved the release of seized goods by Customs authorities.

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage, similar to other identical writ petitions previously considered by the bench. The Court directed 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 receiving the order. Upon payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. The Court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of subsequent sales. The adjudicating authority was explicitly stated to not be influenced by this conditional release order and must decide the matter considering objections from both sides. The Court also noted that the petitioner's request for waiver of demurrage charges would be considered objectively if an application was filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated 15.05.2025, issued by the 4th Respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, warranting the release of the imported consignment? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, and therefore, the imported consignment should be released. The petitioner sought an interim order for the release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition to avoid severe loss and hardship. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, represented by the Customs authorities, did not explicitly record any arguments against the petitioner's claim for release in the provided judgment excerpt. However, the conditions imposed for release, such as deposit of enhanced duty and bank guarantee, indicate the revenue's interest in securing potential duty liabilities.