M/S.Meenakshi Auto Machines vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Meenakshi Auto Machines, challenged the seizure of its imported consignment of 101 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) by the Superintendent of Customs on May 21, 2026. The seizure was based on the petitioner's alleged failure to produce the requisite DGFT authorization/license for the goods, which were imported under Bill of Entry dated May 11, 2026. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to set aside the seizure memo for being without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, and to direct the release of the consignment. The petitioner also filed an interim application for provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and hardship.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, following its own previous order dated March 12, 2026, in W.P. No. 7637 of 2026. The reasoning in the previous order, which was adopted here, directed the relevant authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of goods. This release was to be subject to specific conditions: (a) the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, with release within four weeks thereafter; (b) quantification of duty by Customs within one week of the order, followed by immediate payment by the petitioner; (c) the order not impeding further adjudication proceedings by the Customs Department; and (d) any application for waiver of demurrage charges being considered objectively. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10% of the total price of the goods and maintain details of customers and transactions upon provisional release and sale. The adjudicating authority was to decide the matter without being influenced by the conditional release order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seizure of the imported consignment of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) by the Superintendent of Customs on May 21, 2026, was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, thereby warranting a direction for its release? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary. They submitted that the present writ petition is squarely covered by a previous order of the Division Bench of the High Court in W.P. No. 7637 of 2026, and therefore, a similar order should be passed in this case. Respondents' contention: The learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents did not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the applicability of the previous order.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided, other than Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 CPC for the interim application.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026
i=:T;:::--l 1 wp- 14811-- j026 I.rB(,, F AT HYDERABAD AND iH A N' v. I Dgte: 29th Mav. 2026 Between: M/s Meenakshi Auto Machines . Petitioner AND Union of India, and others ... ResPontlents ORDER: The petitioner's goods numbering i 0l (Second-harrd multifbnr;titrrr printing & copying devices) under Bill of Entry dated i1'05'202(i ui*r"e confiscated by the 4tl' respondent-Superintendent of Clustorns vicle Seizilrt: Memo dated 21.05.2026, on the ground that the petitioner {ailed to proctict-- the requisite DGFT authorization/license. The petitioner chailenges ihe confiscation as illegal and arbitrary, and seeks a direction to thi: 4trt respondent to forthwith release the goods'
Heard Mr. Akkapeddi Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner' z1nd Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy solicitor General of lndia tbr ihe respondents. Perused the record.
2 wp_15871_2026 NBK, J
When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner sui-rmits tirat the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Order dated i,',,- (J3 "2426 passed b,v the Division Bench of this Court in W.p. No. 7637 of 2426 ancl hence sirnilar order rnay be passed in this writ petition also. 4" I-ea:'ned l)epLrty Solicitor General does not dispute the submission rrliide oy the learnc-d counsel for the petitioner.
This ilor"ut, by order dated 12.03.2026, allowed the writ petition No. 763'i o1'2026,I-ry ob*serving as follows:
"
Thu';, fbr ull the afbresaid reosons, it is ordered that let the ra::Jtcnlar'[ :iitthi*itie,s poss an orclcr on the application.filed by the peiitittncr.; l,;;,, }r'ot,isionul releus;e of the goods.rub.iecl to lhe conclitions tiitt!: a) The petitioner shall pay/deposit the enhanced duty amaunt" On receipt of such enhonced duty omount poid by the petitioners, the goods in question shalt be released within o period of lour (04) weeks theredfter. b) For payment of such duty, quantification shail be made by the Customs forthwith within one (01) week frorn the tiote'of receipt of a copy olthis order. On receipt o! sttch quantification, the payment shall be immediately made by the petitioners ond on receipt ol the poyment in entirety, the goods sholl be released os indicoted above ot the outer limit ol four pQ weeks. c) lt is m e cleor that this order will not stond in the way for Customs Department to go ahead with the further prarcedings including the odjudication in the mdnner known to lsw. d) lt is further made clear thdt so far os the condition .of the petitioner thot demurrage charges till dote, for the gaods be considered for waiver, in this regard, if any application is filed by the petitioners seeking such a n_4,_iwoib'er of demurroge chorges, the same shdtt be considered and decided by the respondents objectively.
3 ry
In addition, the petitioners are also direc:ted to trtrovide er bank guarantee worth l0 percenl oJ'the tolal price o./'the goods intported by them. Further it is also orderecl that in the event if the pelitioners upon release of the goods provisiorrully ntakes uncl sell the s'uitply lo lheir customers, details o.f the customers that oJ'relevanl pric:e and c{etail.s ttf' the respective transuctions shall be maintained and rnatle stitilable to the respondent authorities frutm lime lo lirne.
Needless to mention lhat the acljuclicatingauthorill: in lhi: process of' deciding the same u'ould not be in un1' tnanner influcwtt{ b.t' lhe ordet o.f conditional release ordered by this Court. The authority shull decicle ihe same considering the ob.jections and contentions lhal woulcl hc ruised on either side.
Accordingly, thi.su;ritpetition is allotved. T'here shtll b,: iti; order {t.s to costs. " wp_10871__lCrz6 ,\iil;(, J Govt. of lndia, l\. rl, ,'",_\"'s. .F i. To,
Accordingly, in terms of the Order dated 12.03.202{t in \fo'.P Nc. 7637 of 2026 and for reasons alike, this writ petition also stands allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending,'if any, shall stand closed. 'i .. M. ISTANT //" SECTION OFFICER
The Secretary, Union of lndia, Department Ministry of Finance, New Delhi
The Joint Commissioner of Customs, (lmports) GST Bhavan, Basheebagh, Hyderabad - 500004
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, lCD, Sanathnagar - 500018, Telangana
The Superintendent of Customs, lnland Container Depot, Sanathnagar Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate, Hyderabad - 500018, Telangana
One CC to SRI AKKAPEDDI SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia IOPUC]
One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SC FOR CUSTOMSIOPUCI
Two CD Copies PMK ,N GJP
HIGH COURT DATED: 2910512026 WP.No.I6871 o12026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION VACATION COURT E s ,ii, D a OE JUNlW o U E1) * I H c "{ [Il T s i n! ( D
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.