M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Arka Business Solutions (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated May 7, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th Respondent). The Petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 96 units of Multi-Function Devices, valued under Bill of Entry dated April 28, 2026. The Petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. The case involved a procedural history where similar writ petitions concerning seized goods had been considered by the High Court, leading to conditional interim orders for release. These orders were later upheld by the Supreme Court, which also permitted adjudicating authorities to proceed with further proceedings.
Held
The High Court, following its previous orders in similar writ petitions, allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods. This release is subject to specific conditions: (a) the petitioner must pay/deposit the enhanced duty amount, and the goods will be released within four weeks of receipt of payment. (b) The Customs authorities are to quantify the enhanced duty within one week of receiving the order, and upon payment, the goods will be released. (c) The order does not impede the Customs Department's right to proceed with further adjudication proceedings as per law. (d) Any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges will be considered and decided objectively. Additionally, the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee equivalent to 10 percent of the total price of the goods and maintain records of customer details, prices, and transactions for inspection. The Court clarified that the adjudicating authority would not be influenced by this conditional release order and would decide the matter based on contentions from both sides. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of seizure of imported goods, provisional release can be granted subject to stringent conditions, including payment of enhanced duty and furnishing of a bank guarantee, while allowing the adjudication process to continue.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seizure memo dated May 7, 2026, issued by the 4th Respondent is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, warranting the release of the imported consignment? The Petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal and sought the immediate release of the goods. The Petitioner relied on previous orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court in similar matters where conditional release of seized goods was permitted. The Petitioner argued that the seizure memo was issued without proper authority and in contravention of established trade policies. The Respondents, represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding the jurisdiction or the validity of the seizure memo. However, their participation in the proceedings implies a defense against the Petitioner's claims, likely asserting the legality of the seizure and the need for further investigation or adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 151, Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI AND THE TION'BLE SRI WSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.1 6633oF 2026 DATE : L4.05.2o.26 Between: M/ s.Arka Business Solutions ...Petitioner A}ID Union of India and 3 others ...Respondents ORDER Heard Mr.P.Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Dcminci Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, appearing for respondent Nos'2 to 4. Perused the record'
The instant writ petitiorr has been hled assailing the seizure memo, dated 07 '05'2026, issued by the 4th respondent with the further request to forthwith release the imported consignment of the multifunctional devices (96 units) under Bill of Entry No'89419O9' dated23'04'2026' -a"
- 2
Similar writ petitions of identical nature have already been considered b-r this Benc le s'herein by way of an conditional rnterim order this Bench had permitted the release of seized goods subject to the petitioner/ importer fulfilling certain conditions.
One such u.rit petition is W.P.No.12489 of 2025; vr.he re the good s imported rvere seized b1, the Customs authorities and bv virtue of the interim order of this High Court, the Customs authorities were ordered to release on the lollowing conditions. For convenience, we reproduce paragraph Nos.26 & 27 of the order passed in the aforesaid u'rit petition hert:inunder
Thus, frrr a[[ the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that 1eL the respondent authoritics pass an order on t he applicatron f LIe d by the petitioners for provisional release of tl-rc goods subject to the conditions that: a) The petitioner shall pay/dcposit the enhanced duty amount. On receipl of such enhanced duty amount paicl by the petilioners, the goods in question shall bc relcased within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. b) For payment of such duty, quantification shall be madc by the Customs forthwith within one (0 1) rveek from tl-re date of receipt of a copy of this order. ,
--a- )/ 3 On receipt of such quantification, the payrnent shall be immediately made by the petitioners and on receipt of the payment in entirery, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of four (04) weeks. c) lt is made clear [hat this order wilt 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 u'aiver of demmurage charges, the same shall be considered and decided by the resPondents objectivclY'
In additron, 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 o[ the goods provisionally make 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 time to time. the respondent authorities from 5. Pursuant to the said interim direction and upon the psli.tioner therein fulfrlling the conditions stipulated by the ;r 4 High Court, the seized goods w,ere released to the petitioner The said order of releasing of the goods was subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; where the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.42B0B/24, datedl5.Ol.2025, has refused to interfere with the order passed by this Bench
However, as regards the proceedings before the adjudicating authority is concerned, the Honble Supreme Court permitted the adjudicating authority to proceed and decide the same strictly irr 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 a_lso there in the instant case also rvhere the stage at this juncture is only the seizure memo and prayer is alsr, onlv for al interim release of r he seized goods. ,,.
5
In the factual matrix narrated in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition a-lso therefore cal be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Reserving the right of the adjudicating authority to take appropriate decision in the proceedings after permttting 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 provisiona-l release of the goods subject to the conditions that: a) The petitioner shall pay/deposit the enhanced duty amount. On receipt of such enhanced duty amount paid by the petitioners, the goods in question shall be released within a period of four (O4) weeks thereafter. b) For payment of such duty, quantificatton 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 quantihcation, the payment shall be immediately made by the petitioner and on receipt of the payment in entirety, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of four (04) weeks.
- 6 c) It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead u,ith the further proceedings including the ad.judicatron in the manner known to lau.. 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 u,aiver, in this regard, if any application is filed bv the petitioner seel<ing such a waiver of dem murage charges, the sarne shall be considered and decided by the respondents obj ectivelv. 1 1. In addition, the petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee urorth 1C percent of the total price of the goods imported by them. Further, it is also ordered that in thc event il the petitioner upon release of the goods provisionallv 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.
Needless to mention that the adjudicating authority in the process of deciding the same would not be in any manner influenced by the order of conditional release ordered by this Court. The authority shall decide the same
7 considering the objections and contentions that would be raised on either side 13 Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ,,II i35,3;";*'iih$"?il'l secrroffirrrcen To, ' Hf '."i:ri #l:I"J 31iI**i :-,-, H;::":""il' . Hl#[",'::"ll*-"ffJ;': it [?;HI;l ]' ffi ;1 " 313# ;lr,a*#ffi*:::ru: B. Two CD Copies' BSK GJPw
HIGH COURT DATED: 1410512026 ORDER WP.No.16633 of 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS VACATION COURT ,z1l;, ,, v, 1 :'-:'... , 'l).i "... "-t* 2 0 flAY 2026 ii'? Dr^ I \ * zo l:'::'l $d4 \o ,_l i. S-u*
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.