Re-export of seized imported goods permitted pending adjudication upon bond and partial bank guarantee due to prolonged retention.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Seizure Memo dated 06.05.2025 in F.No. DRI/CI/ ENQ/55/2025-CI-O/o DG-DRI-HQ- DELHI/1454-1457, the Impugned Test Report dated 01.04.2025 in F No DRI/HQ-CI/B Cell/50D/Enq01/2025/CI, and the Impugned Provisional Release Order dated 19.08.2025 in F.No.GEN/ADJ/Misc/391/2025 and consequently direct respondents to release the seized goods and permit re-export thereof without insisting upon onerous conditions.

2. At the outset, it is submitted by both learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents in unison that the issue involved in this writ petition stands covered by an order of this Court in W.P. No.48760 of 2025 dated 09.03.2026, wherein it was held as under:

“This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to immediately export the goods, imported vide Z-Type Bills of Entry Nos.7752786, 7753306, 7752983, 7754614 and 7753850 dated 13.01.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had imported fabrics, which have been lying with the first respondent from 18.02.2025. It is submitted that samples of fabrics imported have already been tested and verified by the Department as well as the Laboratory. The petitioner received a series of seizure memos on 18.02.2025 issued by the second respondent, alleging that the petitioner had misclassified the goods imported and resultantly, it did not satisfy the condition relating to the minimum import price applicable to the import of fabrics. The goods imported were allegedly found to be in violation of MIP condition and were seized in exercise of the powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegations of misclassification and resultant undervaluation are based solely on the CRCL test report, and that there was no corroborative material or opportunity of being heard. A summon dated 19.02.2025 was issued under Section 108 of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the respondents 2 and 3 on 28.02.2025. The CRCL test report was intimated to the petitioner on 25.07.2025. Pursuant thereto, petitioner appeared and participated in the investigation and submitted necessary documents, including supplier invoices, product specifications and import correspondence. Despite which, the seized fabrics continue to remain under seizure and in the possession of the first respondent.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that the respondents, in not releasing the goods in question, have acted contrary to the mandate under Section 110 of the Act. In the meanwhile, the petitioner received an intimation dated 12.07.2025 from the respondents stating that a further period of six months was required to complete the investigation until then the seized goods would be liable to remain in their custody. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had not made any payment to its overseas suppliers – M/s.Shaoxing Joylong Import & Export Co. Ltd., and M/s.Shaoxing Keqiao Ruanfa Trade Co. Ltd.

5. In view of the seizure of the goods by the respondents, the petitioner’s overseas supplier, vide letter dated 07.10.2025, requested the petitioner to export the goods to another purchaser, namely, M/s.GCN Resources, No.6B, Jalan TMR 25, Taman, Melaka Raya, 75000 Melaka, Malaysia.

6. In such circumstances, the petitioner vide representation dated 13.10.2025, requested the second respondent to permit re- export of the seized goods to the designated foreign buyers in terms of Section 69 of the Act, while also stating that continued retention of the goods, pursuant to the seizure, would only result in diminish its v