Delhi HC Refuses to Interfere with Customs Order on Provisional Release of Tempered Glass Labeled ‘Made in China’ [Read Order]

The High Court of Delhi, refused to interfere with the Customs Department’s order granting provisional release of tempered glass labeled ‘Made in China’ seized from a premises in Karol Bagh and allowed the petitioner to join the investigation and pursue assessment under Act.

Sonaram Bagadaram Mali,petitioner-assessee, challenged a search conducted by the Customs Department at a girls’ PG in Karol Bagh, where several cartons of tempered glass marked ‘Made in China’ were found and seized.

The petitioner submitted that the goods were purchased locally, no purchase orders were placed with any foreign entity, and no Customs House Agent or broker was engaged. He also filed a detailed reply on 16th June, 2025, stating his inability to pay the amount demanded for the provisional release of the goods.

The petitioner counsel stated that the goods were made in India and not imported, but labels like ‘Made in China’ or ‘Made in USA’ were added to get better prices. The Court issued notice, and Mr. Shubham Tyagi, learned SSC, accepted it, confirming that provisional release had been allowed and the petitioner could challenge the order and join the investigation.

Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain heard the parties and perused the record. The panchama dated 20th February, 2025, revealed that the Customs Department had seized goods from a premises in Karol Bagh on the apprehension that they were illegally imported from China, and a substantial quantity of goods was indeed seized.

The Customs Department estimated the value of the goods at over Rs. 56 lakhs and allowed provisional release subject to bonds of Rs. 56,03,995/- and a bank guarantee of Rs. 29,75,189/-.

The petitioner counsel relied on invoices to argue that the goods were locally manufactured and purchased from local suppliers, so no customs duty was payable. However, the Court noted that the goods bore foreign labels, which contradicted the petitioner’s claim and could mislead consumers, contrary to public interest and policies promoting ‘Made in India’ products.

Considering that the petitioner did not provide invoices and possessed a substantial quantity of goods, the Court declined to interfere with the provisional release order dated 10th June, 2025. The petitioner was allowed to join the investigation and pursue assessment or release in accordance with law.

The observations in this petition did not affect the final merits of the case. The Customs Department remained free to investigate and take action against other suppliers, and the petitioner could avail of appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petition and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates