M/S. Glamex vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Glamex, filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated September 8, 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 104 units of Multi-Function Devices, imported under Bill of Entry dated September 2, 2025. The petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. The petitioner also filed an interim application seeking the release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential severe loss and hardship. The High 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.

Held

The High Court decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage by allowing the provisional release of the seized goods, subject to specific conditions. The court followed a precedent set in a similar writ petition (W.P.No. 12489 of 2025), which was also upheld by the Supreme Court. The conditions for release include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week. The goods are to be released within four weeks of payment. The court clarified that this order would not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. It also directed that any application for waiver of demurrage charges should be considered objectively. Additionally, the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of subsequent sales. The adjudicating authority is to proceed without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated September 8, 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. They sought the immediate release of their imported consignment. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state regarding the jurisdiction or the Foreign Trade Policy. However, the revenue, represented by the Customs authorities, was the authority that issued the seizure memo and opposed the release of goods without fulfilling certain conditions. The court's order implies that the revenue's primary concern was the proper assessment and collection of duties and the potential for adjudication proceedings.