M/S. Glamex vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Glamex, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated 13.04.2026, issued by the 4th respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Customs). The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 96 units of Multi-Function Devices under Bill of Entry dated 09.04.2026. The seizure was made by the Customs authorities. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy. The petition also included an interim application seeking the release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing severe hardship.

Held

The High Court, following its previous orders in similar writ petitions, directed the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the seized goods. This release is conditional upon the petitioner fulfilling specific requirements. The petitioner must deposit the enhanced duty amount, which will be quantified by the Customs within one week of the order. Upon payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. The court clarified that this order does not impede the Customs Department's right to proceed with further proceedings, including adjudication, as per law. Additionally, the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee equivalent to 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods. They are also required to maintain and make available details of subsequent sales to customers to the respondent authorities. The adjudicating authority is not to be influenced by this conditional release order and must decide the proceedings based on objections and contentions from both sides. The Supreme Court had previously refused to interfere with similar conditional release orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 13.04.2026, issued by the 4th respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy. They sought the immediate release of their imported consignment. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the respondents are the Union of India and Customs authorities, who issued the seizure memo. The court's order implies that the respondents' actions were subject to review and potential conditional release of goods.