Bombay High Court
Vyom Dipesh Raichanna vs Union Of India Thr The Secretary ... on 23 June, 2025
Author: M S Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:24878-DB 24-WP-4370-2025-J (F).DOCX
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4370 OF 2025
Shri Vyom Dipesh Raichanna, ]
Age- 24 years, Occ: Business, ]
Proprietor of Trinity Agro Products ]
having its office at F-10, A.P.M.C. ]
Market-I Phase-II, Sector-19, ]
Vashi, Navi Mumbai ] ...Petitioner
AMOL
PREMNATH Versus
JADHAV
Digitally signed by 1. Union of India ]
AMOL PREMNATH
JADHAV
Date: 2025.06.24
(Through the Secretary, ]
11:00:18 +0530
Ministry of Law and Justice, ]
Department of Legal Affairs, ]
Branch Secretariat, Aaykar Bhavan, ]
Annexe, 2nd Floor, New Marine Lines, ]
Mumbai - 400020 ]
2. The Pr. Chief Commissioner of ]
Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, ]
District-Raigad, Maharashtra-400707 ]
3. The Pr. Commissioner of Customs, ]
Gr.-I IA, NS-I, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, ]
District-Raogad, Maharashtra-400707 ]
4. The Pr. Additional Director General ]
Page 1 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2025 21:51:23 :::
24-WP-4370-2025-J (F).DOCX
(ADG), ]
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, ]
Mumbai Zonal Unit, ]
13, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, ]
New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400 020 ]
5. The Senior Intelligence Officer, ]
Directorate Revenue of Intelligence, ]
MSU, NS-II 208-209, 2nd Floor, ]
'D' Wing, Navi Mumbai SEZ ]
Commercial Complex, Sector-11, ]
Near JNPT Township, Dronagiri, ]
Raigad, Maharashtra- 400 707 ]
6. The Intelligence Officer, ]
Directorate Revenue of Intelligence, ]
MZU, NS-II, 208/209, 2nd Floor, ]
'D' Wing, Navi Mumbai SEZ ]
Commercial Complex, Sector-11 ]
Near JNPT Township, Dronagiri, ]
Raigad, Maharashtra- 400 707. ]...Respondents
______________________________________________________
Dr Sujay Kantawala, with Ms Aishwarya Kantawala, Mr Jeffry
Caleb, & Ms Ayushi Jha, for the Petitioner.
Mr Ram Ochani, with Ms Kavita Shukla, for the Respondent
Nos. 2 & 3.
Ms Ruju Thakkar, with Ms Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondent
Nos 4, 5 and 6.
______________________________________________________
Page 2 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2025 21:51:23 :::
24-WP-4370-2025-J (F).DOCX
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 23 June 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M S Sonak, J)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties.
3. Leave is granted to amend the Petition and challenge
the seizure memo dated April 3, 2025, which was issued
during the pendency of this Petition. Amendment to be carried
out forthwith. Reverification is dispensed.
4. This Petition challenges the seizure memo dated 7
March 2025 and 3 April 2025 and the consequent seizure of
the Petitioner's goods under Bills of Entry detailed in Exhibit
'M' (page 213) of this Petition.
5. Ms Ruju Thakkar, the learned Counsel for Respondent
Nos. 4, 5, and 6, submitted that the investigations are nearing
completion, and a show-cause notice is proposed to be issued
to the petitioner by 15 July 2025. She submitted that,
although the report from the Mumbai Lab, for the goods
imported in the previous years, prima facie favoured the
Petitioner, the reports from the Kerala Lab, which is the
specialised lab dealing with Cashew Nuts or Cashew Kernels,
suggest that the imported goods are not roasted Cashew
Kernels. She submitted that, according to the lab results, the
imported goods are plain Cashew Kernels (Raw Kernels) of
the grade Baby Bits. Accordingly, she submitted that the
24-WP-4370-2025-J (F).DOCX
Advance Ruling Authority's decision, on which the Petitioner
relies, may not apply to these goods. Mr Ochani also makes
the same submissions.
6. Since a show cause notice is proposed to be issued by 15
July 2025 at the latest, we do not propose to examine the
rival contentions now raised in this Petition. All contentions
regarding the imported goods and the applicability of the
Advance Ruling Authority's decision are therefore kept open
to be decided while disposing of the show cause notice. All
contentions of all parties in this regard are explicitly kept
open.
7. However, we take cognizance of Mr Kantawala's
submission that the imported goods were seized in March /
April 2025. He submitted that these goods are perishable in
nature and any further delay will be in the interest of neither
of the parties. He submitted that even if the Respondents'
version is accepted, the duty payable would be in the range of
about Rs. 5.75/- Crores at the highest. He submitted that the
Petitioner is required to pay an additional demurrage of about
Rs. 50 Lakhs for no fault of the Petitioner company. He
submitted that, taking into account all these factors, the
Petitioner, without prejudice, is offering the bank guarantee in
the amount of Rs. 1 Crore and the bond to secure the balance.
He submitted that the interest of justice would be served if the
goods were directed to be provisionally released subject to
these conditions of a bank guarantee and bond.
8. The learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the
above suggestion. Ms Thakkar submitted that the imported
goods are "prohibited goods" because, in terms of the
24-WP-4370-2025-J (F).DOCX
notification dated 21 February 2023, broken Cashew Kernels
can be imported only if the CIF value is above Rs. 680 per
Kilogram. Without prejudice, she submits that, usually, even
for a provisional release, a bank guarantee or a cash deposit of
the entire duty should be provided.
9. There is a serious dispute regards the description of the
goods. The Petitioner seeks the benefit of the decision of the
Advance Ruling Authority for the previous years. Mr
Kantawala submits that there is no difference between the
goods imported in the earlier years and the present goods,
which are the subject matter of this Petition. Again, He also
points out the report of the Mumbai Lab, which admittedly
favours the Petitioner's version. Therefore, at this stage, it is
too premature to accept the Respondents' contention about
the goods being "prohibited goods".
10. Ms Thakkar points out that the Bombay report does not
pertain to the goods seized under the impugned seizure
memos. She points out that the Bombay Lab report concerns
the goods previously imported. Mr Kantawala, on instructions,
submits that there is no difference between the goods
previously imported and the goods which are the subject
matter of the present impugned seizure memo. All these
matters can be examined when disposing of the show cause
notice.
11. Additionally, we also note that the prohibition applies
only if the CIF value is below Rs. 680 per Kilogram. This is not
a case of importing contraband. In any event, all these issues
can be decided while disposing of the show cause notice.
24-WP-4370-2025-J (F).DOCX
These are contentious issues, and pending a decision on these
issues, there is no point in allowing the goods to perish.
12. The offer for the bank guarantee of Rs. 1/- Crore cannot
be accepted. The interest of justice would be served if the
Petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs. 2.5 Crores and a
bond of Rs. 3.25 Crores as a condition for provisional release.
This will secure the interest of the Respondents and, at the
same time, will prevent the perishing of the goods.
Considering the material placed on record by the Petitioner, it
would not be proper to let the goods perish. As noted earlier,
the Petitioner is armed with the decision of the Advance
Ruling Authority and a report from the Mumbai Lab. The
other material on which the Respondents rely will certainly
require consideration, which can be examined while disposing
of the show cause notice.
13. Regarding detention demurrage, we leave it to the
Petitioner to represent to the Respondents for waiver, etc. If
such representation is made, the same should be disposed of
following the law. Again, all contentions in this regard are also
left open.
14. Accordingly, we dispose of this Petition by making the
following order: -
ORDER
(a) The statement made by the Respondents that a
show cause notice would be issued latest by 15
July 2025 is accepted.
24-WP-4370-2025-J (F).DOCX
(b) Mr Kantawala's statement that a response would
be filed within 15 days of the receipt of the show
cause notice is also accepted.
(c) The show cause notice must be disposed of within
6 weeks of the receipt of the Petitioner's response.
(d) All contentions of all parties in this regard
are left open.
(e) The Respondents are directed to release the goods
which are the subject matter of impugned seizure
memos dated 7 March 2025 and 3 April 2025
within seven days of the Petitioner furnishing a
bank guarantee from HDFC bank in an amount of
Rs. 2.5/- Crores and a bond in an amount of Rs.
3.25/- Crores.
(f) The Rule is disposed of in the above terms without
any order for costs.
(g) All concerned must act on an authenticated copy
of this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
