M/S Arka Business Solutions vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Arka Business Solutions, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated April 21, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs. The petitioner sought the release of 113 units of imported multi-functional devices under Bill of Entry No. 8642453 dated April 13, 2026. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. The respondents are the Union of India and various Customs authorities. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application seeking interim release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential severe loss and hardship.
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 subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner depositing the enhanced duty amount within four weeks of its quantification by the Customs authorities. The Customs authorities were directed to quantify the enhanced duty within one week of receiving the court's order. The petitioner was also required to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods. The court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication, and that the adjudicating authority would not be influenced by this conditional release order. The court also directed that if the petitioner applies for a waiver of demurrage charges, the respondents should consider it objectively. The petitioner is also required to maintain and make available details of customers, prices, and transactions to the respondent authorities if the goods are sold provisionally.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seizure memo dated April 21, 2026, issued by the 4th respondent (Superintendent of Customs) is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. They sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and the release of their imported consignment. They also sought an interim order for the release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition due to potential severe loss and hardship. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's order implies that the Customs authorities had seized the goods, and the proceedings were at the stage of a seizure memo, with a prayer for interim release.
Sections Cited
Foreign Trade Policy, 2023
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 HYDERAB;\D THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI(I}, NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA w.P.No.14302 Ot'2{!26 28.04.2026 Between: Mis Arka Busiuess Soltitiiins. Rep. by its Proprietol Mr K. Akhil Priyatar,-r . . . Petitioner AND Union of India, Rep. by its Secretarv, Department of Finance, Jeevan Deep BLritding, 3'd Fioor, Sansad Marg, Nerv Delhi and -l i-thers . . .Respondents QBDEB, @cr Ilorr'bIc Sri.Jt.tstite P Sunt lios]\..) Hearcl Mr. P. Karthik Rantantr, ie'ained cortnsel for the petitioner ancl lv{r. Dunilil Sashank. lt:uilrtcci counsel lepresenting Mr. Dorninic Fernandes. Iearttecl Seniol St:inding Courrsel for the CBIC for respondent Nos-l ic-r :l' Pertrserl the iecord' Z. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the seizure memo dated 21.04.:026. issued by the 4th respondent with the further request to fbrth'+,'irh lelease the imported
2 consignment of the nrultif'unctional devices ( 1 l3 units i under Bill of Similar writ petitions of identical nature have already been considered by this Benc-h wherein by way of a conditional interim order this Bench hati periritted the lelease of seized goods subject to the petitioner /importer ful fi llin g certain conditions.
One such utit pctition is W.P.No.l2489 of 2025; where the goods imported u'et'c seized by the Ctlsti-rms atlth()rities and b1' virtue of the interim ordel of this I{igh authorities were orders.l rr-. release on the fcrllowing conditions. For convenience, r'r'e rept'cduce paragraph Nos.26 &.2',' of the order passed in the aforeszLici u r'it i;etition hereinunder: Entry No.8642453 dated 13.04.2026. Court. the Customs
Thus. for all tr'ie aforesatd reasons ii i's orciered trat 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 petitionL.i- shall payideposit the enhanced duty amount. On receipt of sL:ch enhancecj duty amount paid by the petitioners, the goocis in question shall be released within a period of four (04) ,weeks thereafter. b) For payment of sucn duty, quantification shall btl rnade by the Customs fofihv;rih rvithin one (01 , $/eel{ from the date of J
3 receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such quantification, the payment shall be immediately made by the petitiqners and on receipt of the payment in entirety, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of four (04) weeks c) lt 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) lt 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. Flldher, it is alsc ord3red that in the event if the petitioners upon release of the goods provisionally make and sell the supply to their customers, dstails of the customers that of relevant price and details of the respective tiansactions shall be maintained and made available to the iespondent authorities from time to time.
Pursuant to the said interim direction and upon the petitioner therein fulfilling the conditions stipulate:d by the High Courl, the seized goods were released to the petitioner. The said order of releasing of the goods rvas subjected challenge before the to Hon'ble Supreme Courl; where the frlon'ble Supreme Court in 4 SLP.No.42808/24. datedi5.01.202,s. has refused to interfere with the ordel passed by this Ilench.
However, as regards the procecdings befole th: adjudicating authority is concemed, thc Hon'ble Supre me Court permitted the adjudicating authority' to proceed and decide the same strictly in accordance with [a,"a. I-he petitioner is also helc[ entitled for parlicipation in the adjudicating proceedings
Pursuant to the ciisposai of the SLP, this Courr. has disposed of all such writ petitions n,hereby the goods were reieased and the proceedings were pendii-'g before the ad.;udicating autliority.
Similar nature oi'ihcts are alsc therc in the ins,tant case also where the stage at this junctr,rre is onlv the seizure merno and prayer is also onlv for an interim release of the seized goods.
In the factual inatiix narrated ir.r the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considere,l opinion that the instant writ petition also therefore can be disposed of at the adn'rission stage itself. Reserwing the right of the adjudicating authorit) to take appropriate decision
5 in the proceedings after permitting the petitioner to represent before the adjudicating authorit-v : l0.Thus'foralltheafbresaidreasons,itisorderedthatletthe 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 pafideposit the enhanced duty amount. On receipt of such enllatlced dttty amount paid by the petitioners. the goods in question shall be released witl-rin a period of four (04) ''veeks thereafter' b) For payment of such duty, quantification shall be made by the Customs forthwith r'vithin one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' C)n receipt of such quantification, the payment shall be irnrlrediately made b;i the petitioi-rcrs and on receipt of the payrnent in entirety, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of four'(04) weeks' c) It is made cleat'that this oliiel u'i1l not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead with the further proceedings including the adjudication in the mallner known to lan''
6 d) It is lurthel rnade cleau' that so tar as the condition of the petitioner that clemurrage ctarges till date. for the socds be considered lbr waiver. in this regard, if an1, application is tiled by the petitioners seeking such :r rvair'et of clemurrage charges, the same shall be consie'leled r,.nd decidecl b1, the respondents obj ectively. 1 1. In addition, the petitioncrs are also tlirected to Jrr-ovide a bank guarantee rvorth i 0 percent of the total price of the g,tods imported by them. Further', it is also ordered that in the event if the petitioners upon release ofthe goocls plo.' isionally inakes and sellthe supply to their customers. detaiis of ihe custorners rhat of rele..ant price and details of the respeclivc Llansactions shall be maintaiired and made available to the respc-rrdcnt authorities ll'om ti;ne to time.
Needless to urerrtiorr that the adiudicatins ar-rthoritv in the process of deciding thr. same rvould not be in any lnanner influenced by the oliier of corrditional release ordered by this Cour-t. The authority shall decirie the sarne considering the objections and contentions that wou lC ii,: i':rised on either side
7
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //// . .A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To SA BS l.TheSgcretary,Unionoflndia,MinistryofFinance,JeevanDeepBuilding'3rd Floor,.Sansad Marg. New Delhi-110 001
The Joint Commisiionel of Customs (lmports), GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh' Hyderabad-500 004. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, lCD, Thimmapur-S09 325' Telangana.
The Superintendent of Customs (lCD-Thimmapur), Hyderabad Customs Co m m issio nerate, HYderabad
One CC to SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO' Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Advocate [OPUC]
ONE CC tO SRI DbMINIC FERNANDES, SC FOR CBIC (OPUC)
Two CD CoPies d,
HIGH COURT DATED: 2810412026 ORDER WP.No.14302 of 2026 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. Alr s,le l't' 6t. SIA 1 IF e ( o 1 6 Jlril 2026 1Z. .\7 {',t/ l',., t n.F' ;)
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.