Case law

Bombay High Court · 9 Mar 2026

Glamstone Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Thr… vs The Union Of India And Ors

Legal principle

Goods importable only subject to statutory conditions (such as CDSCO registration for cosmetics) become prohibited goods under Section 11 read with Section 125 of the Customs Act when imported without compliance, and such an unlawful import cannot claim re-export as a matter of right notwithstanding warehousing.

Court decision

The court rejected the petition with no costs, upholding the seizure: following ALM Enterprises, it endorsed the view that import of cosmetics without the prescribed registration certificate is not a legal import, and goods imported without fulfilling statutory conditions amount to prohibited goods in terms of Section 11 read with Section 125 of the Customs Act. The claim to re-export therefore failed; the court expressly declined to decide the challenge to the Chartered Engineer's valuation at this stage, keeping all contentions on that issue open while observing that valuation must be undertaken only by a person who is an expert considering the nature of the goods.

Facts

Glamstone Cosmetics, an importer and trader of cosmetics and FMCG, brought three consignments from the UAE in November 2025 and filed warehousing Bills of Entry, asserting the goods were held in bond only pending a CDSCO licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and were always intended for re-export (Indian warehousing being cheaper than in the UAE). The DRI seized the goods under a Seizure Memo dated 26 November 2025 issued under Section 110 of the Customs Act, recording a reasonable belief that the goods were mis-declared, undervalued, and smuggled for want of the mandatory CDSCO licence, and valued them (via a Chartered Engineer) at about Rs. 10.09 crores as liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d), (l) and (m). The goods were moved to a public bonded warehouse on conditions of hold and 24x7 CCTV surveillance, and the petitioner's representation for an NOC to re-export went unacted upon, prompting a writ petition under Article 226 to quash the seizure memo.

Key provisions