Ms Digital Print Solutions vs. The Commissioner Of Customs Hyderabad Ii Imports218
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Digital Print Solutions (the petitioner) imported 212 units of second-hand highly specialized equipment, specifically digital multifunction print, copying, and scanning machines. The goods were imported vide Bill of Entry No. 8985220 dated 30.04.2026. The Customs authorities, through the Superintendent of Customs (4th respondent), seized the goods on 08.05.2026 via a seizure memo. The petitioner challenged this seizure and sought the release of the goods on payment of applicable duties, along with a waiver of demurrage charges. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, following a similar order passed in W.P. No. 12489 of 2025. The Court directed the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the seized goods, subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week of the order. The goods are to be released within four weeks of receiving the enhanced duty payment. The order clarifies that it does not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. The petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of subsequent sales. The adjudicating authority is to decide proceedings objectively, without being influenced by this conditional release order. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had previously refused to interfere with a similar conditional release order in SLP No. 42808124.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the Respondent authorities in seizing the imported second-hand specialized equipment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import Export Policy 2023, and Meity Notification S.O. No. 2844(E) dated 01.07.2021? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was arbitrary and contrary to relevant statutory provisions and policy. They sought the release of goods on payment of applicable duties and waiver of demurrage. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state. However, the context implies the revenue's action was based on their assessment leading to the seizure.
Sections Cited
Customs Act 1962
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COI'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN DATE z L4.O5.2O26 Between: M/ s.Digita1 Print Solutions ...Petitioner AITD The Commissioner of Customs and 3 others 'RDER: . "'ResPondents HeardMr.Mohd.AnwarAli,learnedcounsel representing Mr.G.Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Dominic Fernaldes, learned senior Standing counsel for cBIc appearing on behalf of respondents. Perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the seizurre memo dated 04.02.2026, issued by the 4th \
2 respondent with the further request to forthwith release the imported consignment of the Multi-Functional Devices (212 units) under Bill of Entry No.8985220 dated 30.04.2026. 3. Similar writ petitions of identical nature have already been considered by this Bench wherein by way of a conditional interim order this Bench had permitted the release of seized goods subject to the petitioner/importer fulfilling certain conditions.
One such writ petition is W.P.No.l2489 of 2025; where the goods imported were seized by the Customs authorities and by virtue of the interim order of this High Court, the Customs authorities were ordered to release on the following conditions. For convenience, we reproduce paragraph Nos.26 &,27 of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition hereinunder:
Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that let the respondent authorities pass an order on the application filed by the petitioners for provisional release of the goods subject to the conditions that: a) The petitioner shall pay/deposit ttre enhanced duty amount. On receipt of such enhanced duty amount paid by the ;-.i E::1=;
3 petitioners, the goods in question shall be released within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. b) For payment of such dut5r, quantification shall be made by the Customs forthwith within one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such quantification, the payment shall be immediately made by the petitioners and on receipt of the payment in entirety, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of four {04) weeks. cf It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead with the further proceedings including the adjudication in the manner known to law. d) It is further made clear that so far as the condition of the petitioner that demmurage charges till date, for the goods be considered for waiver, in this regard, if any application is filed by the petitioners seeking such a waiver of demmurage charges, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents objectively. 27. ln addition, the petitioners are also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods imported by them. Further, it is also ordered that in the event if the petitioners upon release of the goods provisionally make and sell the supply to their customers, details of the customers tJ:at of relevant price and details of the respective transactions shall be maintained and made available to the respondent authorities from time to time. 5. hrrsuant to the said interim direction and u.pon the petitioner therein fulfilling the conditions stipulated by the I High Court, the seized goods were released to the petitioner. The said order of releasing of the goods was subjected to \ I {
4 challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; where the Honble Supreme Court in SLP.No.428OBl24, dated 15.01.2025, has refused to interfere with the order passed by this Bench.
However, ?S regards the proceedings before the adjudicating authority is concerned, the Honble Supreme court permitted t]le adjudicating authority to proceed and decide the s€une strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner is also held entitled for participation in the adjudicating proceedings.
Pursuant to the disposal of the SLP, this Court has disposed of all such writ petitions whereby the goods were released and the proceedings were pending before the adj udicating authority.
Similar nature of facts are also there in the instant case also where the stage at this juncture is only the seizure memo and prayer is also only for an interim release of the seized goods I
5
In the factual matrix narrated in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition also therefore can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Reserving the right of the adjudicating authority to take appropriate decision in the proceedings after permitting the petitioner to represent before the adjudicating authority.
Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that let the respondent authorities pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner for provisional release of the gbods subject to the conditions that: t a) The petitioner shall pay/deposit the enhanced duty amount. On receipt of such enhanced duty amount paid by the petitioner, the goods in question shall be released within a period of four (O4) weeks thereafter. b) For pa5rment of such drty, quantification shall be made by the Customs forthwith within one (O1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such quantification, the payment shall be immediately made by the petitioner and on receipt of the payment in \
6 entiretSr, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of four (04) weeks. c) It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead with the further proceedings including the adjudication in the manner known to law. d) It is further made clear that so far as the condition of the petitioner that demurrage charges till date, for the goods be considered for waiver, in this regard, if any application is filed by the petitioner seeking such a waiver of demurrage charges, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents objectively. 1 1. In addition, the petitioner is also directed to provide a Bank Guarantee worth 1o percent of the total price of the goods imported by them. Further, it is also ordered that in the event if the petitioner upon release of the goods provisionally makes and sell the supply to their customers, details of the customers that of relevant price and details of the respective transactions shall be maintained and made available to the respondent authorities from time to time.
7 t2. Needless to mention that the adjudicating authority in the process of deciding the s€une would not be in any ma.nner influenced by the order of conditional release ordered by this Court. The authority shall decide the same considering the objections and contentions that would be .ir ,} raised 6n either side. ' 13f , Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed' Consequently, miscellaneor-ls petitions pend'ing, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE SECTION OFFICER To,
The Commissioner of Customs ( lmports, GST Bhavan, Opp: L.B. Stadium Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad
The Joint Commissioner, of Customs ) Opp L.B. stadium, GST Bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500004
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, O/o. Dy Commissioner of Customs, lCD, Thimmapur, Ranga Reddy-509 325
The Superintendent of Customs, O/o. Dy Commissioner of Customs ICD Thimmapur Ranga Reddy-509 325
One CC to SRI G. MALLA REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI .
One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (SR. SC for CBIC) [OPUC]
Two CD Copies BN i,. i.tAl- YV \
, VACATION COURT HIGH COURT DATED: 1410512026 ORDER WP.No.16639 of 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 5 .-1---.-- t ,J FSPAf t 1 tN 2$70 o oU * ! t s eI 2\ 5 lb t 1
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.