The Bombay High Court has directed the Customs Department to decide, within three weeks, a representation filed by an importer seeking the provisional release of seized imported goods and Indian currency amounting to Rs. 3.61 crore and refrained from examining the merits of the dispute, holding that the competent customs authority must first consider the petitioner’s pending representation after granting an opportunity of hearing. 

The Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna directed the Proper Officer of the Customs Department to give prior notice of the hearing to the petitioner. Afford the petitioner or an authorised representative an opportunity of personal hearing. Permit reliance on judicial precedents placed by the petitioner. Pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. Communicate the decision to the petitioner.

Buy Now: 70+ Judgements Indirect Tax – July 2026 | E-Magazine

The Customs authorities had seized imported glass beads under two seizure memos dated April 30, 2026, issued under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner also sought the release of Indian currency amounting to ₹3,61,60,000 seized earlier on January 28, 2026. The seized goods were stated to be covered under a Supurdnama dated January 29, 2026. 

During the proceedings, Dr. Sujay Kantawala the petitioner also sought permission to amend the writ petition to challenge a subsequent seizure memo dated July 15, 2026, issued under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, as well as an intimation dated July 24, 2026, by which the Customs Department allegedly extended the time for issuance of a show cause notice until January 27, 2027. The petitioner contended that the unilateral extension was contrary to law. 

The High Court permitted the amendments, making them part of the record. 

The Court noted that the petitioner had already submitted a detailed representation on May 13, 2026, before the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, requesting immediate provisional release of both the seized goods and the cash. The petitioner argued that despite repeated follow-ups, the authorities had not taken any decision on the representation. 

The Customs Department did not dispute that the representation remained pending before the Proper Officer. The Department informed the Court that the representation would be decided in accordance with law. 

Taking note of the pending representation, the High Court held that the dispute could appropriately be addressed by directing the competent customs authority to decide the matter after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, rather than adjudicating the merits in the writ proceedings. 

The Bench clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to file an additional representation concerning the subsequent seizure memo dated July 15, 2026. Such representation is to be submitted within four days from the date of uploading of the Court’s order. 

The Court further observed that if the order ultimately passed is adverse, the petitioner would be free to pursue such legal remedies as may be available under law. 

Considering the urgency arising from the continued seizure of goods and substantial cash, the Division Bench directed the Customs Department to complete the entire exercise—including hearing the petitioner and passing a reasoned order—within three weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment. 

The High Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. All factual and legal issues, including the legality of the subsequent seizure memo and the extension of time for issuance of the show cause notice, were left open for consideration by the Proper Officer in accordance with law. 

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty Demand on Poultry Cage Weld Mesh