Swastik Overseas & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: 14.10.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010642702025
+ W.P.(C) 13522/2025, CM APPL. 55474/2025 & CM APPL.
26509/2026
SWASTIK OVERSEAS & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Govind Krishna Dixit, Ms.
Anasua Chakravarti, Mr.
Shubhankar Jha & Ms.
Sanjeevani Dixit, Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with
Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Adv.
for R-4&6/DRI.
Mr. Avtaar Singh Deol, SPC
with Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr.
Vinay Chadda, Mr. Rishabh
Gupta & Mr. A. Sakthivel,
Advs. for R-7.
Dr. Subhash C Gupta, Sr. Adv.
for R-8/BIS. (through VC)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition was filed seeking setting aside of three seizure
memos dated 05.08.2025 and one dated 29.07.2025 whereby the
goods imported by the petitioners were seized at ICD, Dadri, Uttar
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:21
W.P.(C) 13522/2025 Page 1 of 7

Pradesh (UP) under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs,
Noida. Further direction is sought for release/provisional release of the
seized goods and for directing the Union of India (UOI) and the
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (for short ‘CBIC’) to
issue directions to the seizing authority not to rely upon a certificate
issued by the Chartered Engineer (for short ‘CE’) for determining the
classification of the goods.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioners imported designer and
decorative stainless-steel coils from China. The imported goods were
seized at ICD, Dadri, UP on the ground that the goods are not
classified under Customs Tariff Heading (for short ‘CTH’) 73269060
as claimed by the petitioners and that BIS certification under IS 6911
was required in terms of the Steel Control Order issued by the Union
Steel Ministry. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary
objection of territorial jurisdiction and relies upon the decision of this
Court in M/s Meever India Private Limited v. Union of India & ors. ,
2026:DHC:1574-DB.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the all-India
headquarters of the Customs Commissionerate is located in Delhi. The
detention is contrary to the CBIC policy regarding the empanelment of
CE and the certificate of CE was wrongly relied upon for determining
the classification of the goods. Further that similar goods were cleared
by other ICDs.
4.1 The submission is that the CBIC exercises all-India jurisdiction
and that ICD, Dadri is a regional unit of Directorate of Revenue
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:21
W.P.(C) 13522/2025 Page 2 of 7

Intelligence (for short ‘DRI’) whose headquarters is located in Delhi.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India , (2011) 10 GSTR 20
to contend that the writ petition would be maintainable before a Court
where even a minuscule part of the cause of action has arisen.
4.2 The decision of the Supreme Court in Bakshish Ahmad v.
Union of India & Ors. , MANU/SC/0622/2026 is relied upon to
contend that this Court has jurisdiction in respect of the detention of
goods at ICD, Dadri.
5. The prayer in the writ petition is for setting aside the detention
of goods at ICD, Dadri under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Customs, Noida. A further direction is sought for provisional
release/release of the seized goods. The entire cause of action has
arisen at ICD, Dadri which falls under the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Customs, Noida. It would be apposite to note that
pursuant to an interim order of this Court dated 30.07.2025, an order
dated 12.08.2025 was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Noida
rejecting the request for provisional release.
6. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
detention is in contravention of the CBIC policy; the certificate of the
Chartered Engineer could not have been relied upon for determining
the classification of the goods in terms of the CBIC policy; and that
similar goods were cleared by other ICDs are of no avail for invoking
the jurisdiction of this Court for release of the goods and for
challenging detention at ICD, Dadri. The contentions raised are in
support of the claim of the petitioners that the imported goods were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:21
W.P.(C) 13522/2025 Page 3 of 7

correctly declared under the heading CTH 73269060 and are not flat-
rolled stainless-steel coils. These issues are to be considered by the
Commissioner of Customs, Noida and not by the headquarters of the
DRI at Delhi or by the CBIC. The issue as to whether the certificate
issued by the CE can be relied upon for determining the classification
of the goods and whether such reliance is in accordance with the
CBIC policy is also to be considered by the Commissioner of
Customs, Noida.
7. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Sterling Agro
Industries Ltd. (supra) does not advance the case of the petitioner.
The Larger Bench was dealing with a reference arising out of a
jurisdictional claim of this Court relying upon the fact that the
revisional authority was located in Delhi and that this Court had
territorial jurisdiction to deal with the lis in question. The conclusions
of the Full Bench are reproduced as below:
35. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to
modify the findings and conclusions of the Full Bench in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India , AIR 2010
Delhi 43; [2011] 166 C-C 87 (Delhi) and proceed to state
our conclusions in seriatim as follows:
(a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole
cause of action emerges at the place or location where the
Tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority is situate
and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot
decline to entertain the writ petition as that would amount to
failure of the duty of the court cannot be accepted inasmuch
as such a finding is totally based on the situs of the
Tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority totally
ignoring the concept of forum conveniens.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:21
W.P.(C) 13522/2025 Page 4 of 7

(b) Even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within
the jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would be
maintainable before this court, however, the cause of action
has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of
Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim (2007) 136 C-C 665;
(2007) 11 SCC 335.
(c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of
cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the
High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority
is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to
compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The
High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
(d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional
authority is located constitutes the place of forum
conveniens as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is
not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend upon
the lis in question.
(e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise
jurisdiction under article 226 if only the jurisdiction is
invoked in a mala fide manner is too restricted/constricted
as the exercise of the power under article 226 being
discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of
mala fide alone.
(f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum
conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to
be scrutinised by the High Court depending upon the factual
matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in
Ambica Industries v. CCE (2007) 213 ELT 323; [2009] 20
VST 1 (S.C.) and Union of India v. Adani Exports
Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 567.
(g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench
in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India , AIR
2010 Delhi 43; (2011) 166 C-C 87 (Delhi) (page 115):“…
that since the original order merges into the appellate order,
the place where the appellate authority is located is also
forum conveniens” is not correct.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:21
W.P.(C) 13522/2025 Page 5 of 7

(h) Any decision of this court contrary to the conclusions
enumerated hereinabove stands overruled.

8. The case of the petitioner is not covered by the conclusions of
the Larger Bench. The authority detaining the goods is outside the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Not even a minuscule part of the
cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court and the doctrine of forum conveniens is not applicable in the
present case and this is a case of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
9. The decision of the Supreme Court in Bakshish Ahmad (supra)
was a case where the writ petition was not dismissed on the ground of
lack of territorial jurisdiction but the doctrine of forum non-
conveniens was invoked. The decision is not applicable to the facts of
the present case.
10. The decision of the Division Bench in M/s Meever India
Private Limited (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present
case. In that case despite challenging the validity of the circular issued
at Delhi, it was held that the issue regarding rejection of the NOC
related to the business activities carried out by the petitioner at
Chennai or Kolkata and no part of the cause of action had arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court for entertaining the
petition. In the case in hand, the proceedings are pending before the
Commissioner of Customs, Noida, UP. The goods have been detained
at ICD, Dadri and no part of the cause of action has arisen within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
11. The petition is dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
12. Pending applications stand disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:21
W.P.(C) 13522/2025 Page 6 of 7

13. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of
remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. All
pending applications stand disposed of.


AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

SHAIL JAIN, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026
‘ha’
Reportable: Yes
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:21
W.P.(C) 13522/2025 Page 7 of 7