Cosmetics imported without regulatory license are prohibited goods upon entering territorial waters, ineligible for warehousing or re-export, and liable to seizure and confiscation under Customs Act.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting issue, as to whether the cosmetics in question, subject matter of the Bills of Entry filed by the petitioner for warehousing and alleged not to be meant for home clearance, would suffer an embargo for a re-export and proceedings for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short “Customs Act”).

2. The relevant facts are required to be noted : The petitioner is stated to be engaged in the import and trading of cosmetics (perfumes, glow and lovely cream, Taft Hairspray, toothpaste, shampoo, conditioner, shower gel, luxury perfumes etc.) and FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods). In the month of November, 2025, the petitioner imported three consignments of cosmetics and FMCG. It filed Warehousing Bills of Entry qua these consignments, in November, 2025.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that these goods were never intended to be cleared for home consumption, for the reason that as for home consumption, a regulatory approval was necessary, of the petitioner requiring a Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) license. The petitioner had applied for such license on 5 May, 2025 with the Competent Authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Admittedly the petitioner has not been granted the CDSCO licence qua the goods in question. This is also not the case of the petitioner that the goods in question would be intended to be cleared on any prior license obtained by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has contended that a decision to bring the goods into India from the port of origin, i.e., UAE was to warehouse the goods in India, as the warehousing expenses in UAE were three times more than what was payable in India. Hence it was thought feasible to shift the goods to India and thereafter re- export the same, which would enable the petitioner to earn substantial profits. It is contended that this is a perfectly legitimate and acceptable business practice. The petitioner has contended that filing of Warehousing Bills of Entry itself negates any inference, that the petitioner intended to clear the goods for domestic consumption. It is stated that the goods upon landing were accordingly shifted to the nominated Container Freight Station (CFS), i.e., New Maersk CFS and thereafter, they were assessed by respondent no. 4.

5. The petitioner contends that the Warehousing Bills of Entry were thus filed only to hold the goods in bond, pending regulatory clearance, which also negated any alleged intent to evade customs duty or misuse the goods. The warehousing scheme exists precisely to enable such lawful holding of goods pending compliance. It is the petitioners case that however the goods came to be seized by respondent no. 2 under a Seizure Memo dated 26 November, 2025 issued under Section 110 of the Customs Act.

6. The petitioner to save the detention and demurrage charges made a specific request to the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai Zonal Unit to permit the petitioner to move the goods/containers from CFS to a Public bonded warehouse. This request was granted by the said officer on the condition that the goods/containers be kept on hold at the bonded warehouse and under 24X7 CC