TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds aggregated to approximately 8,000 net kilograms, which were intended for commercial sale in India. It is stated that the invoices were raised in the ordinary course of international trade and were accompanied by the requisite shipping documents. In December 2025, the consignments were shipped from Oakland, USA, to the Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Navi Mumbai, under four Bills of Lading. The petitioner contends that the goods constitute agricultural produce and are perishable in nature, requiring timely clearance and appropriate storage conditions, to preserve their quality and commercial value. Upon arrival of the goods on 08 December 2025, the petitioner, through its duly appointed Customs House Agents, filed four Bills of Entry before respondent no. 2 for home consumption, making all the statutory declarations. No discrepancy whatsoever was revealed or raised at the time of filing of the Bills of Entry. 3. On 11 December 2025, the Bills of Entry were duly assessed by the Customs Officer, and the customs duty, as assessed, was paid in full by the petitioner. At that stage, no queries, objections or conditions were imposed by the customs authorities at the time of assessment, and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l M. Thakkar, Director of the petitioner company, dated 09 January 2026, is placed bringing on record, subsequent developments, thereby annexing copies of the Detention Memo dated 23 December 2025, panchanama dated 23 December 2025, seizure memo dated 24 December 2025 issued by respondent no. 4, letter dated 24 December 2025 addressed by respondent no. 4, and letter dated 29 December 2025. 6. However, what is noteworthy is the nature of the seizure as recorded in the seizure memo (Exhibit-C to the additional affidavit), wherein wholly on general observations and alien to the petitioner's import in question were made. As rightly contended on behalf of the petitioner, such references as made in the seizure memo read thus: "7. Offence:- An intelligence was developed by the officers of DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit that certain Importers are importing "In-shell Walnuts of US Origin" with invoices being raised from US and third countries like UAE, Canada, Indonesia etc. and evading customs duty by resorting to undervaluation. Searches were conducted at various premises of certain importers. During searches, some sales contract and parallel invoices belonging to various importers wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p that the present proceedings are before this Court. 10. Mr. Mohan Jayakar, learned counsel for the petitioner has made elaborate submissions. We note from the record that despite sufficient time being granted to the respondents to respond to the petition, no reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has made elaborate submissions. He has also placed on record an order dated 23 January 2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs NS-I (respondent no. 2), being an order of provisional release under Section 110A of the Act. The said order reiterates similar reasons as recorded in the seizure memo, alleging undervaluation of the imported walnuts and estimating differential duty at Rs. 92,94,193.92. No specific material against the petitioner is referred in support of such conclusion. Nevertheless, the order directs provisional release of the goods subject to execution of a bond equal to the assessable value of Rs. 1,97,20,800/- as also furnishing of a security deposit/bank guarantee of Rs. 60,00,000/- in respect of the seized goods. 11. On the aforesaid backdrop, the limited issue which arises for consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14. We find that the facts of the present case are peculiar, inasmuch as there is no incriminating material whatsoever placed on record or even brought to the notice of the petitioner by the concerned customs officer qua the imports in question. The allegations of evasion of customs duty by resorting to undervaluation would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the case before the Delhi Authorities, as referred in the seizure memo. In the present case no search was conducted at the petitioner's premises. A sweeping/general statement is foisted in the seizure order and the provisional release order, in regard to some actions taken within the jurisdiction of the DRI Delhi Zone unit on consignments of other importers of similar goods, who/which has nothing to do with the petitioner, and in no manner concerning the petitioner. There is no material to show that, similar to what had happened in the case of other importers before the Delhi Authorities, namely that in the petitioner's case, during any search, sales contracts or parallel invoices belonging to various importers being at all recovered from the petitioner or any other similar material was elicited. In t....