No Writ to Stop Vessel Entry Over Disputed Import: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking urgent directions to restrain the customs department from allowing entry and clearance of certain consignments allegedly shipped to India without its consent. The bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul has observed that the petition was misconceived and that the statutory scheme under the Customs Act, 1962 adequately addresses situations where goods are unclaimed or disowned. The petitioner/assessee company, engaged in the manufacture and export of PVC flooring granules from Uttarakhand, had earlier exported consignments to a Singapore-based buyer, United Overseas Trade Pte. Ltd. The exports were cleared through ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi, in compliance with statutory requirements. According to the company, it later received a Cargo Arrival Notice dated February 16, 2026, from Ocean Network Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., indicating that two containers described as “return shipments” of PVC granules were arriving at ICD Tughlakabad from Singapore. The bills of lading showed the petitioner as the consignee/importer. The company claimed it had neither authorised nor consented to any return shipment and had not placed any import order. It asserted that the use of its name and Import Export Code (IEC) for the alleged return consignment was unauthorised and fraudulent. A representation was made to customs authorities disowning the cargo. Invoking Sections 30 and 31 of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner sought multiple directions, including restraining customs authorities from permitting entry of vessels carrying the consignments into Indian territory; Refusal to grant entry inwards under Section 31; Rejection of any Import General Manifest (IGM) filed in its name; Prohibiting unloading, clearance, or warehousing of the goods; Directing the shipping line to take back the consignments; and Declaration that the company was not the importer and bore no liability for duties, demurrage, or penalties. The petitioner also sought protection against any adverse action affecting its IEC. The court noted that the petitioner had admittedly exported goods to the Singapore buyer. However, the foreign buyer was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition. The Court observed that the pleadings suggested that the goods in question were possibly returned by the same Singapore entity to whom the original shipment had been made. Yet, the petitioner had not clearly explained the status of the original export transaction or the circumstances leading to the alleged return. The Bench held that once the petitioner had disowned the consignment, the statutory consequences under the Customs Act would follow. The Court referred to Section 48 of the Act, which provides for the procedure in cases where imported goods are not cleared, warehoused, or transshipped within thirty days of unloading. In such cases, customs authorities are empowered to take appropriate action, including disposal of the goods. The Court further stated that granting an injunction restraining authorities from acting under Sections 30 and 31 would itself be contrary to the statutory framework. Holding that no case was made out for exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the petition. It clarified that if the petitioner had any contractual dispute with its Singapore buyer, it was free to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Case Details Case Title: Maheshwar Flooring Industries Limited Versus Union Of India Citation: JURISHOUR-76-HC-2026(Del) Case No.: W.P.(C) 2286/2026 & CM APPL. 11043/2026, CM APPL. 11044/2026, CM APPL. 11045/2026 Date: 18/02/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Mohit Chaudhary Counsel For Respondent: Dr. B Ramaswamy Click Here To Read Order Read More: Green Channel Violation Not Equal to Smuggling: Delhi HC Upholds Gold Redemption

No Writ to Stop Vessel Entry Over Disputed Import: Delhi High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

From Seizing/freezing to forfeiture: Unmasking Section 68J of NDPS Act

Karnataka High Court Quashes Dismissal of Central Tax Superintendent in Red Sanders Valuation Case

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 23 May, 2026

Whether Revisional Order Beyond S. 108 Limitation Is Valid? Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief to IndiGo in GST Refund Dispute

More like this

From Seizing/freezing to forfeiture: Unmasking Section 68J of NDPS Act

Karnataka High Court Quashes Dismissal of Central Tax Superintendent in Red Sanders Valuation Case

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 23 May, 2026

About us

Company

Categories