The HC refused to disturb a communication granting provisional...

The HC refused to disturb a communication granting provisional release of seized goods and directed the Petitioner to join the ongoing investigation; the Petition challenging that communication was dismissed. The Court found the Petitioner's claim of local manufacture contradicted by labels indicating foreign origin and held that misdeclaration - including labelling as 'Made in China' or other foreign jurisdictions - undermines consumer protection and public interest, particularly against the policy promoting 'Made in India'. Given the Petitioner's failure to produce invoices and the large quantity seized, the HC declined to interfere with the 10 June 2025 communication, leaving the Petitioner free to participate in the investigation and seek assessment or release in accordance with law.

---