Bombay High Court Permits Re-Export of Seized Cosmetic Consignments Imported by Glamstone

The court observed that the goods had been imported under warehousing bills of entry and were not intended for domestic clearance without the required regulatory approvals.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by Glamstone Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., challenging a seizure memo dated November 26, 2025 issued by the DRI. The company had imported three consignments of cosmetics and FMCG products from the UAE in November 2025 and filed warehousing bills of entry, intending to store the goods in India before re-exporting them.

According to the petitioner, the goods were never meant for home consumption in India as the company had not yet received the required license from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

However, the DRI seized the consignments under Section 110 of the Customs Act on suspicion of undervaluation and regulatory violations.

The petitioner contended that the imports were bona fide and intended solely for re-export. It argued that filing warehousing bills of entry itself showed that the goods were not meant for domestic sale in India.

The petitioner, Glamstone Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., submitted before the Bombay High Court that the seizure of its imported consignments by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was unjustified and contrary to law. The company contended that the three consignments of cosmetics and FMCG products imported in November 2025 were never intended for clearance for home consumption in India. According to the petitioner, the goods were imported under warehousing Bills of Entry, which clearly indicated that they were meant to be stored in bonded warehouses rather than immediately released into the domestic market. The petitioner explained that a regulatory approval from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) was required for home consumption clearance of the imported cosmetics. Since such approval had not yet been granted, the company had already applied for the necessary licence on May 5, 2025 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and therefore opted to warehouse the goods until the regulatory clearance was obtained.

The petitioner further argued that the authorities had wrongly assumed that the goods were being smuggled or illegally imported. It submitted that the goods were in bonded warehouses and had not been cleared into the domestic market. In such circumstances, the company maintained that it was legally entitled to seek re-export of the goods, particularly when the required CDSCO registration certificate had not yet been issued. The petitioner also challenged the valuation adopted by the authorities, stating that the seizure memo relied on a report prepared by a Chartered Engineer who, according to the petitioner, was not competent to determine the valuation of cosmetic and FMCG products. It was contended that the goods were being wrongly valued at more than ₹10 crore, whereas the actual value declared in the Bills of Entry was significantly lower. The petitioner argued that such incorrect valuation had formed the basis of the seizure under Sections 111(d), 111(l), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The company therefore asserted that the seizure was based on untenable assumptions and requested the court to permit re-export of the consignments, emphasizing that the goods had never been intended for domestic sale and had remained under the customs warehousing system pending regulatory clearance.

The respondents, represented by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, strongly opposed the petition and supported the seizure of the consignments. In its reply affidavit, the DRI stated that it functions under the Ministry of Finance and is tasked with preventing smuggling and safeguarding government revenue under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the department, the investigation revealed that the petitioner had deliberately misused the warehousing provisions under the Customs law to circumvent mandatory regulatory requirements applicable to the import of cosmetics into India.

The DRI further alleged that the petitioner had mis-declared the value of the imported goods. According to the valuation report prepared by a government-approved valuer, the actual value of the three consignments was approximately ₹10.09 crore, whereas the petitioner had declared the value at around ₹1.64 crore in the Bills of Entry. The department therefore alleged gross undervaluation of goods, which made them liable for confiscation under the Customs Act.

In addition, the respondents argued that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the investigation. Several opportunities and summons had been issued to the directors of the company to participate in the inquiry, but they allegedly avoided appearing before the authorities after the initial stage. The department stated that the petitioner neither produced supporting documents such as purchase orders nor established that the goods were genuinely intended for re-export. Consequently, the respondents argued that allowing re-export at this stage would defeat the ongoing investigation and would effectively regularize serious violations of customs law, foreign trade policy, and the regulatory requirements governing cosmetic imports into India.

In addition, the respondents argued that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the investigation. Several opportunities and summons had been issued to the directors of the company to participate in the inquiry, but they allegedly avoided appearing before the authorities after the initial stage. The department stated that the petitioner neither produced supporting documents such as purchase orders nor established that the goods were genuinely intended for re-export. Consequently, the respondents argued that allowing re-export at this stage would defeat the ongoing investigation and would effectively regularize serious violations of customs law, foreign trade policy, and the regulatory requirements governing cosmetic imports into India.

To view the order, click the link below: