2025 (10) TMI 1345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the case are that the Petitioner had imported various products vide Bill of Entry dated 11th May, 2025, including products declared as 'Face Roller (Beauty Care Products)' under the Customs Tariff Head No. 39269099 (hereinafter "subject imported products"). It is stated that the entire consignment was examined by the Customs officials and some of the goods were found to be mis-declared including the subject imported products. The Petitioner vide letter dated 19th May, 2025 sought provisional release of the same after payment of the differential duty, interest and fine. 4. However, the subject imported products were seized by the Customs Department on 11th June, 2025 on the ground that the same have been mis-declared as 'Face Roller (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emption fine that may be levied; iii. The importer shall also submit an undertaking to the effect that the quantity, quality and composition of the seized goods which has been taken and placed on record will not be challenged in future." 6. This Court is already seized of two matters being W.P.(C) 3542/2025 and W.P.(C) 3543/2025 titled Techsync vs. The Superintendent Of Customs SiibAcc ImportsAnd Ors., where similar products have been seized by the Customs Department on the ground that the same are sex toys and obscene products which are prohibited from import. On 18th September, 2025, after hearing the parties in the said cases the Court had directed as under: "7. Considering the above position, let the Central Board o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rily prohibit import of the same. The ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also submitted that the Customs Department has cleared similar goods imported by other companies, however, the Petitioner's products have been selectively seized. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. SSC has countered the submission of the Petitioner as to the applicability of the decision in Doc Brown (supra), on the ground that the same is distinguishable on facts from the present case. 11. The Court has heard the parties and perused the documents placed on record as also the order for provisional release dated 17th June, 2025. As per the said order, no reason has been provided for continued seizure of the subject import products. Further, it is not d....