WRIT PETITION 1112/2025 on 30 December 2024

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article226 of the Constitution of India seeking release of the goods seized by theCustoms Department vide seizure memo dated 30th December, 2024.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that it had placed certain orders for importof unbranded PU sole assorted fashion canvas shoes (sports footwear).However, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide order dated 15thMarch, 2024 had issued the Footwear made from Leather and otherMaterials (Quality Control) Order, 2024 requiring compulsory complianceof BIS standards and use of ISI mark on sports footwear with effect from 1stAugust, 2024.

4. Though the manufacture of the footwear was prior to the effective date, due to some difficulties from the supplier’s end, the dispatch of the goods isstated to have been delayed and the bill of entry was filed only on 1[st]December, 2024.

5. Upon arrival, the goods were detained, and thereafter seized on 30[th]December, 2024. An Order-in-original was passed giving an option to thePetitioner to seek release of goods on payment of redemption fine and penaltyof Rs. 1,07,500/- each, respectively.

6. The Petitioner made the said payments and the Gate Pass was alsoissued, however, the goods have not been released. Hence, the Petitionershave preferred the present petition. The operative portion of the Order-in-Original reads as under:

“O R D E R

i. I order for confiscation of the goods value atRs.8,60,328/-, as detailed in Table-A supra, importedvide Bill of Entry No.6989144 dated 01.12.2024, underSection 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, Igive an option to redeem the said goods on paymentof Redemption Fine of Rs. 107500 /- (Rupees - OneLakh seven thousand five hundred only) underSection 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.ii. I impose a penalty of Rs. 107500/- (Rupees - OneLakh seven thousand five hundred only only) on theimporter under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act,1962.”

7. The copies of the gate pass have also been placed on record. It was thusunclear as to why the goods have not yet been released.

8. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 7[th]February, 2024, ld. SeniorStanding Counsel for the Respondent had sought time to seek instructions inthe matter. Today, it is submitted by him that an appeal has been filed by the Department, challenging the order-in-original, before the Commissioner(Appeals). According to Mr. Singla the case of the Department is that theQCO had come into effect on 1[st]August, 2024 and the interpretation given inthe Order-in-Original that the products were manufactured prior to the saiddate, and therefore, they deserve to be released, is not accepted by theDepartment.

9. In addition, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel has also pointed out thephotographs of the products to the Court, which show that they bear the logosof well-known marks.

10. In view of the above facts, this Court is not inclined to release the goodsat this stage. The Petitioner is free to approach the Commissioner (Appeals)and contest the appeal filed by the Department. The Petitioner is also free toseek release of the goods, after the same are examined in accordance with law.11.The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pendingapplications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

FEBRUARY 20, 2025/gunn/ks

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.