Bombay High Court
SHIVSHAKTI ENTERPRISES THRU PROPRIETARYversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NS-1 AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The petition is allowed; the seizure memo and the order demanding a Rs.40,00,000 bank guarantee are quashed and the goods must be released without security.
Summary
Shivshakti Enterprises imported two consignments of roasted arecanut splits and obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) confirming conformity with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Despite the NOC, the Customs Department seized the goods on 19 May 2026 and later ordered the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.40,00,000 for their provisional release. The petitioner challenged the seizure memo and the security requirement, arguing that the FSSAI NOC should be conclusive for release. The Court held that once the FSSAI issues a clear NOC, the Customs Department cannot impose additional security or re‑examine the goods, relying on the precedent of NBG International Private Limited v. Union of India and related decisions. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, the seizure memo and bank‑guarantee order were quashed, and the goods were directed to be released without any security, subject only to obtaining a Certificate of Fitness before sale.
Issues considered
- Whether a customs seizure and demand for a bank guarantee can be justified after the FSSAI has issued a No Objection Certificate for imported food articles.
- Whether the FSSAI NOC is conclusive for customs clearance notwithstanding the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
- Whether further laboratory testing by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory is permissible after the FSSAI has completed its analysis.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- customs seizure
- food import clearance
- FSSAI NOC
- bank guarantee
- writ petition
- Customs Act
- Food Safety and Standards Act
- security deposit
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUPALI WP-6043-2026.doc
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.09.01
14:42:06
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6043 OF 2026
Shivshakti Enterprises )
A Sole proprietary concern of )
Rohit Kumar Somabhai Patel, )
Having its office at 13th Floor, )
A/1302, Building No.5, )
Bonaventure Apartment, )
Rangnath Keskar Road, Dahisar (W), )
Mumbai – 400 068. )...Petitioner
)
Versus )
)
1. The Commissioner of Customs, )
NS-1, Jawaharlal Nehru Customs )
House, (JNCH), Nhava Sheva, )
Uran, Dist – Raigad. )
)
2. The Commissioner of Customs )
(SIIB – Import), )
Jawaharlal Nehru Customs )
House, (JNCH, Nhava Sheva, )
Uran, Dist. - Raigad. )
)
3. The Dy. Commissioner of )
Customs (SIIB – Import), )
Jawaharlal Nehru Customs )
House, (JNCH, Nhava Sheva, )
Uran, Dist. - Raigad. )
)
4. The Dy.Commissioner of )
Customs (Group – I) )
Wakodikar 1/11
WP-6043-2026.doc
Jawaharlal Nehru Customs )
House, (JNCH), Nhava Sheva, )
Uran, Dist – Raigad. )
)
5. The Joint Commissioner of Customs, )
NS-1, Jawaharlal Nehru Customs )
House, (JNCH), Nhava Sheva, )
Having her office at )
Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, )
Nhava Sheva, Taluka Uran, )
Raigad, Maharashtra – 400 707. )....Respondents
Mr. Darius Shroff, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Ms. Linzy
Sharan & Ms. Sakshi Doshi i/b PDS Legal for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Mr. Ashutosh Misra, Mr. Abhishek R.
Mishra for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties and is taken up for final disposal.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing
of the impugned seizure memo dated 19th May, 2026 and the
impugned order dated 22nd June, 2026 passed by the respondent
Wakodikar 2/11
WP-6043-2026.doc
No.5 to the extent it seeks a security deposit / Bank guarantee of
Rs.40,00,000/- from the petitioner.
3. The facts and circumstances give rise to filing of the
petition are as under :
The petitioner on 28th March, 2026 imported two
consignments of Roasted Arecanuts Splits (Beetle Nuts) under Bills of
Entry bearing No.8347475 and 8347647. The department took
examination of the imported goods and accordingly samples were
drawn and sent for testing to the Food Safety and Standards
Authority of India (‘FSSAI’ for short).
On 10th April, 2026, the FSSAI issued a NOC stating that
they have no objection if the imported goods are released as the
same were in conformity under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
(‘FSS Act, 2006’ for short). Inspite of the said order of NOC by the
FSS Act, 2006, the goods were not released, therefore, the petitioner
on 23rd April, 2026 filed the present petition.
Wakodikar 3/11
WP-6043-2026.doc
During pendency of the present petition in this Court, the
samples of the imported goods were sent to the Central Revenue
Control Laboratory (‘CRCL’ for short) for further testing. The CRCL
in its two reports, both dated 5th May, 2026 stated that the moisture
content in the samples of the imported goods was 6.8% and 6.9%,
respectively.
On 19th May, 2026, the respondent No.2 proceeded to
seize the goods. The petitioner requested the respondents to release
the imported goods, provisionally, on acceptance of bond, however,
the respondent No.5 vide order dated 22 nd June, 2026 permitted
provisional release of imported goods upon the petitioner executing a
bond and furnishing a Bank guarantee of Rs.40,00,000/-. The
petitioner, therefore, amended the petition and challenged the
impugned Seizure Memo dated 19th May, 2026 and the order dated
22nd June, 2026 to the extent the petitioner was directed to furnish
Bank guarantee of Rs.40,00,000/-.
Wakodikar 4/11
WP-6043-2026.doc
4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed their affidavit. It
is the contention of the respondents that the declaration made by the
importer regarding nature, description and tariff classification of the
goods is always subject to verification, reassessment and
investigation by the proper officer in accordance with the provisions
of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is
further contended that the issuance of no objection certificate from
the authorized officer under the FSSAI Act, 2006 did not conclude
the issue of tariff classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It
is submitted that the jurisdiction exercised by the FSSAI Authorities
is confined to ensuring that imported food articles conform to the
standards prescribed under the FSS Act. Since there was a bonafide
dispute, the samples were referred to the CRCL, New Delhi.
5. It is contended that the goods were rightly seized and the
petitioner was rightly called upon to furnish a security deposit / Bank
Guarantee of Rs.40,00,000/-.
Wakodikar 5/11
WP-6043-2026.doc
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended
that once the goods were examined by the authorized officer under
the FSSAI, there was no justification on the part of the respondents
in undertaking examination through CRCL. The issue regarding
release of Roasted Arecanuts upon furnishing a bond and without
insisting upon any security deposit is now settled by the Judgment of
this Hon’ble Court in the case of NBG International Private Limited
v/s The Union of India and Ors.1 It is further contended that the
Judgment in the matter of NBG International (supra) has been
followed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Credence
International V/s. Union of India & Ors.2, the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in the case of M/s Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd. Ludhiana,
M/s Prenda Creations Pvt.Ltd. Ludhiana V/s. Union of India & Ors. 3
and the Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Universal Impex, M/s
Neena Enterprises V/s. The Commissioner of Customs & Ors.4.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents refuted
1 2026(3) TMI 1212
2 2026(7) TMI 1137
3 (2026(8) TMI 1298
4 2024 (11) TMI 1088
Wakodikar 6/11
WP-6043-2026.doc
the position and made submissions which are already recorded in the
affidavit as mentioned above.
8. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
9. The issue in hand is squarely covered by the Judgment in
the matter of NBG International (supra). This Court has in
paragraph Nos.17 and 18 observed as under :
“17. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Make
Index Impex Vs. Union of India and others 2023-SCC
OnLine-Bom-1678, of which one of us (G.S. Kulkarni, J.)
was a member, in the context of import of Soya bean,
which the Respondents had contended, was harmful for
human consumption, has clearly held that once a clear
stand is taken by the FSSAl that the Soya bean in question
was in no manner harmful for human consumption in
whatever form and was in light of the requirements and
parameters of FSSAI Rules, any contrary position could
not be adopted by the Customs Department and the goods
have to be released in the facts of the case. Relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid decision are reproduced
Wakodikar 7/11
WP-6043-2026.doc
below:
"13. Accordingly, a clear stand of the FSSAl is on
record that the Soya bean sought to be cleared
by the petitioner and subject matter of the
present proceedings, in no manner whatever
would be harmful for human
consumption/health in whatever form, in the
light of the requirements and parameters of the
FSSAI Act, 2006 and the Rules framed
thereunder, if the goods are permitted to be
cleared
14. Considering such clear position on record, we
are of the opinion that the approach as now
sought to be adopted by the Customs
Department and more particularly in the light of
the position taken by respondent no. 1-Union of
India, respondent no. 8-Genetic Engineering
Appraising Committee as also respondent no.10-
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate
Change and most significantly by respondent
no.7-Food Safety & Standards Authority of India,
we are of the opinion that the approach as
suggested by Mr. Vyas, learned ASG and as noted
by us above, ought to be accepted, and the
proceedings, without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties on any of the issues,
which may arise, be disposed of by the following
order."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Further, the Food Import Manual issued by FSSAI
clearly specifies the steps to be taken insofar as laboratory
analysis is concerned. It is only after this laboratory
analysis is made, that a NOC is issued by the FSSAI and
Wakodikar 8/11
WP-6043-2026.doc
then on the basis thereof, the goods can be released. The
relevant procedure for laboratory analysis is reproduced
below:
"iv) Laboratory Analysis :
a) The sample of the imported food product is
forwarded to the notified laboratory that is auto
selected randomly in the Food Import Clearance
System (FISC);
b) The samples of imported Food sent by the
Officer authorized by FSSAl are analyzed by the
laboratory as per parameters defined in the FSS
Act and the Regulations thereunder;
c) The laboratory shall complete the analysis and
upload the test report in FICS in Form 2 of the FSS
(Import) Regulations, 2017) within five days of
receipt of the sample with conclusive opinion
about the product tested as conforming or
nonconforming.
d) For testing of food Import consignments
through a transparent and expeditious process,
NABL accredited laboratories have been notified
by FSSAI throughout the country. These FSSAl
notified laboratories are also utilized for testing of
imported food consignments by the Authorized
Officers of Customs Department. FSSAI has also
notified 22 Referral labs other than the Primary
labs, for re-testing of appeal samples of the
Importers. The list of the food testing labs is
available at https://www.fssai.gov.in/cms/food-
laboratories.php."
Wakodikar 9/11
WP-6043-2026.doc
(Emphasis supplied)
It is seen from the above procedure that insofar as
laboratory analysis is concerned, the analysis and test
reports are made by FSSAl within five days from the date
of receipt of sample with conclusive opinion about the
product tested as conforming or non-conforming. This
goes on to show that the tests conducted by the FSSAl are
of precise nature and high standards of testing are ensured
and made applicable before clearing the food suitable for
human consumption. In this view of the matter, we are of
the opinion that any window for reclassification of the
categorised goods, itself is not on a sound premise, in the
facts and circumstance of the case.”
10. Taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court
in the Judgment of NBG International (supra), which squarely covers
the issue involved in the present case, we are of the firm opinion that
the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No. 6043 of 2026 is allowed.
Wakodikar 10/11
WP-6043-2026.doc
(ii) The impugned Seizure Memo dated 19th May, 2026
(annexed at Exhibit – FF to the petition) and the impugned
order dated 22nd June, 2026 (annexed at Exhibit – HH to
the petition) passed by the respondent No.5 to the extent it
seeks a security deposit / Bank guarantee of
Rs.40,00,000/- is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondent No.5 is directed to forthwith release
the goods of the petitioner without insisting on Bank
guarantee.
(iv) The petitioner should once again obtain Certificate
of Fitness from the FSSAI before dealing with the goods in
the open market as the same are lying with the
respondents since March, 2026.
(v) No order as to costs.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms and the petition
is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 11/11
Checking your session…