8-WP.3425.2021

Page 1 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3425 OF 2021

Anu Products Ltd.

}

Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and Ors.

}

Respondents

Mr. Anupam Dighe i/b. India Law Alliance for the

petitioner.

Mr. J. B. Mishra with Mr. Ashutosh Mishra for

respondent nos. 1 and 4.

Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia with Mr. Ram Ochani for

respondent nos. 2 and 3.

CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &

M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE :-

DECEMBER 3, 2021

PC :-

1.

The petitioner had imported “Paraquat Dichloride”. On

the ground that the petitioner made such import without the

requisite import permit and mandatory registration with the

Central Insecticide Board as required by sections 9 and 17 of

the Insecticide Act, 1968, the imported goods were seized

vide seizure memo dated January 25, 2021 of the Senior

Intelligence Officer, Special Investigation and Intelligence

Branch (Import), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava

Sheva.

Immediately

thereafter,

the

petitioner

vide

representation dated January 28, 2021 contended that the

imports have not been made in violation of any statutory

8-WP.3425.2021

Page 2 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PS

provision and consequently, prayed for its release. Since the

application for release was not considered, this writ petition

dated February 14, 2021 was presented seeking, inter alia,

the following relief: -

“a. That this Hon’ble Court be please to issue a

Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari

or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction

calling for the records and proceedings dealing

with the Impugned Memo dated 25^th January, 2021

(Exhibit S hereto) in the Petitioner’s case and after

going into the legality, propriety and validity

thereof to quash and set aside the same.

b. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a

Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of

Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or

Direction directing Respondents, their servant,

subordinates and agents

i)

withdraw the said Impugned Memo dated

25^th January, 2021 passed by Respondent Nos. 2

and 3 (Exhibit S hereto)

ii)

to allow unconditional release of the

Petitioner’s import covered under Bills of Entry

Nos. 8580862 dated 25.08.20, 8712875 dated

05.09.20 (Ex-bond Bill of Entry No. 9213357 dated

17.10.20) and 8712079 dated 05.09.20 (Ex-bond

Bill of Entry No. 9214917 dated 17.10.20).”

2.

In course of hearing, Mr. Kantharia, learned advocate for

the respondents 2 and 3, has submitted that a show-cause

notice dated October 22, 2021 under section 124 read with

section 5(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been issued by the

Joint Commissioner of Customs, Group 2CF, JNCH and in view

of such notice, the writ petition has been rendered

infructuous.

3.

Mr. Dighe, learned advocate for the petitioner, referring

to a coordinate Bench decision of this Court as well as a

8-WP.3425.2021

Page 3 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PS

decision of the Gujarat High Court has, however, submitted

that since no provision of law was violated by the petitioner

while making import of “Paraquat Dichloride”, the relief

claimed by the petitioner ought to be granted.

4.

In our opinion, whether any statutory provision was

violated must be examined at the first instance by the officer

who has issued the show-cause notice. If indeed there has

been a violation, confiscation would follow in accordance with

law. Should the petitioner be able to persuade such officer

that there has been no violation, the notice would be required

to be withdrawn and the proceedings dropped. However, at

this stage, it would be inappropriate for us to examine the

question of alleged violation and make an order one way or

the other.

5.

We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a

direction upon the Joint Commissioner of Customs to decide

the show-cause notice in accordance