Territorial jurisdiction and retrospective customs circular limits affected clearance of imported consignments and writ maintainability.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was available because the petitioner's registered office and business were at Indore, the relevant contract was executed there, and withholding of clearance gave rise to part of the cause of action within the High Court's limits. The writ was therefore maintainable. On the customs issue, the impugned circular could not be applied retrospectively to consignments already covered by the commercial invoice and prior contractual arrangement, and it could not justify continued withholding of clearance. The goods were directed to be released, while the department was left free to examine BIS compliance in accordance with law after release.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the High Court on the basis of territorial jurisdiction and part of the cause of action arising within its limits; (ii) Whether the impugned customs circular could be applied to the petitioner's imported consignments and justify withholding clearance.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the High Court on the basis of territorial jurisdiction and part of the cause of action arising within its limits.

Analysis: The petitioner's registered office was at Indore, the business was carried on from there, and the contract giving rise to the dispute was entered into at Indore. The withholding of clearance of the imported goods also gave rise to a part of the cause of action within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction was therefore available.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable before the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned customs circular could be applied to the petitioner's imported consignments and justify withholding clearance.

Analysis: The circular was held not to render the import itself impermissible, and the court accepted that it could not be applied retrospectively to consignments already covered by the petitioner's commercial invoice and prior contractual arrangement. On that basis, the continued withholding of the goods was unjustified. At the same time, the court left open the department's liberty to examine BIS compliance in accordance with law after release.

Conclusion: The impugned circular could not be used to withhold the petitioner's consignments and the goods were directed to be released.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in part, with relief granted only to the extent of directing clearance of the imported goods while leaving any further lawful action on BIS compliance open.

---