(Prayer: Call for the records pertaining to the impugned mahazar dated 17.11.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent and quash the same and pass)

1. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the product “vital wheat gluten” imported by the petitioner is freely importable under the Duty Free Import Authorization No.3411005881 dated 30.12.2024 obtained by the petitioner. The said authorization granted in favour of the petitioner permits import of wheat flour without payment of customs duty. However, the respondents under the impugned seizure notice has held that the aforesaid authorization will not apply to the case of the petitioner since the product involved is “vital wheat gluten” and not “wheat flour” for which duty free import authorization was obtained by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities in support of his contentions that “vital wheat gluten” and “wheat flour” are one and the same, for the purpose of classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act and for obtaining customs duty exemption benefit under the duty free import authorization obtained by the petitioner:

                   a) Unicolloide Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmd, reported in 2014 (310) ELT 0583 (Tri-Ahd);

                   b) Unibourne Food Ingredients LLP Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra reproted in 2022 (381) ELT 810 (Tri-Ahmd);

                   c) M/s. Parry Enterprises Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Customs (order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.17912 of 2023).

3. In addition to the authorities of the Constitutional Courts, referred to supra, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT):

                   a) Order-in-Appeal Seaport.C.Cus.II No.525/2021 dated 09.07.2021;

                   b) Order-in-Original No.86748/2021 dated 16.11.2021;

                   c) Uni Colloids Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai [2020 (9) TMI 949 – CESTAT MUMBAI].

4. In the aforesaid decisions as well, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and CESTAT, the same view has been taken i.e., “vital wheat gluten” and “wheat flour” products are one and the same. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without jurisdiction and without following the due procedure of law, the impugned seizure notice has been issued to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the public notice No.41/2015-2020 dated 02.11.2016 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade has no applicability to the goods imported by the petitioner since the same has been suspended on 26.08.2025 through public notice No.20/2025-26. The suspension of Standard Input Output Norms (SIONs), which applies to the goods imported by the petitioner has also been placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, once again, the learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that the impugned seizure notice has been issued by total non application of mind to the fact that the Ministry has suspended the Standard Input Output Norms (SIONs) pertaining to food products, which includes the product imported by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned seizure notice has to be quashed by this Court since the same has been issued without jurisdiction and by total non application of mind.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner, pursuant to the issuance of the impugned seizure notice had personally met the first respondent on three occasions. But, till date, no decision has been taken by the respondents. Since the goods are perishable in nature and since the goods, according to the petitioner, are exempted from payment of customs duty as per the advance authorization obtained by the petitioner, this Court will have to direct the respondents to immediately release the goods.

7. However, on the other hand, Mr.Rajendra Raghavan, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit as follows:

                   a) No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the petitioner participates in the enquiry proceedings as mentioned vide the Summons issued to them by the respondents and submit their explanation, which has been pointed out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition;

                   b) A final decision will be taken by the respondents after giving due consideration to the said explanation on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the law is well settled, that “vital wheat gluten” and “wheat flour” are one and the same, in view of the authorities relied upon by him, which has been referred to supra, there is no necessity for this Court to direct the petitioner to participate in the hearings pursuant to the impugned seizure notice issued by the respondents to the petitioner.

9. Till date, counter has not been filed by the respondents. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents seeks time to file counter. However, as seen from the earlier proceedings of this Court, this writ petition is listed for hearing before this Court for the fourth time. More than two weeks have elapsed since the writ petition came up for “Admission”, before this Court on 28.11.2025.

10. Since the subject goods are perishable in nature and that too when the petitioner categorically contends that the impugned seizure notice has been issued without any authority under law and their stand is also supported by certain decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, in the interest of justice had to do a balancing act to protect the interest of the petitioner as well as the respondents, by issuing the following directions:

                   a) The first respondent shall give a personal hearing to the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned seizure notice for the hearing on 19.12.2025. On that date, the petitioner shall submit its explanation as to why the impugned seizure notice is arbitrary and illegal and has been issued without any authority under law;

                   b) The first respondent shall, thereafter, take into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner along with the authorities which were placed on record before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after giving due consideration to the same, shall pass final orders as to whether further action can be taken by the first respondent or not, pursuant to the impugned seizure notice within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s explanation as stated supra. If the first respondent accepts the contentions of the petitioner in his final order, the subject goods have to be released to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Customs Act without any further delay;

                   c) Till final orders are passed by the first respondent, as directed by this Court in this order, the respondents shall not seize the subject goods. Seizure of the goods depends upon the final outcome to be decided in the order to be passed by the first respondent as stated supra. The final order should be passed after considering all the authorities placed by the petitioner, who contends that the subject goods are freely importable since according to them “vital wheat gluten” and “wheat flour” are one and the same.

11. In terms of the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

12. Post the matter for reporting compliance on 05.01.2026.