M/S.Prius Tecnologies vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Prius Technologies (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated 21-04-2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (ICD-Timmapur), the 4th respondent. The petitioner sought to set aside the seizure of their imported consignment of 113 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 17-04-2026, bearing No. 8718256. The petitioner also requested the provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. 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.
Held
The Court held that the instant writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage, similar to previous identical writ petitions. 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 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 the enhanced duty payment. The Court clarified that this order would not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of sales to customers, including prices and transaction details, for the respondent authorities. The adjudicating authority is to decide the case without being influenced by this conditional release order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seizure memo dated 21-04-2026, issued by the 4th respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023? The petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction, violating the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the release of the imported consignment. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment, but their role as customs authorities implies a defense of the seizure based on relevant provisions of law and policy. The court noted that similar writ petitions with identical issues had been considered by the bench, where conditional interim orders for the release of seized goods were granted.
Sections Cited
Section 129
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 HYDERABAD THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY ANT) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUS'UCE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.l36t3 oF 2026 Betr.r,een: M/s Prius Tecl.rnologies, Rep. by its Proprietor IVlr. i\nkir Khettcrpal . . Petitioner /rNI Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Departrrent of Revenue, Nlinistr-v of }iinii_nce, Govemment of lndia, New Delhi anri 3 others . . . Respondents ORDER, @u Hon'hk firr.hrstice p.,Satt lioshv,) lleald Mr. K.Rama Sreenivas, lr:atred counsel representing Ivlr. Al<kapeddi Srinivas, leamed counsel i.rr the petitioner and Mr. Dundu Sashank, learne'rl counse] replesenting Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing rlounsel for the CBIC for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Pr:rused the record.
The instant r,vrir petition has been filed assailing the seizure merno dated 21 .A4.2021i, issued by the 4th respondent 28.04.2026
2 with the furlher t'eqr-rest to forthrvith release the imported consignment olthe rnr-rltiil rnctional devices (t13 units) under Bill of Entry No.8718256 dated 11 '042026'
Similar writ petitions of identical natttre have already been considered by this Bench rlrherein by rvay of a conditional interim order this Bench hacl perrlitted the release of seized goods subject to the petitioner/imporle r lirlfitling certain ccuditions'
One such rvlit petition is W'P'No i2489 of 2025; where the goods imported were seizecl by the Customs authorities and by vittue of the interini ordcl of this High Court' the Customs authorities rvere orderecl tc release on 15t f6llowing conditions' For convenience. rve repr.ociuce plaragraph Nos.26 & 2,7 of the order passed in the af-oresaicl r"'ri''- petition hereinttnder:
Thus, for all the aforesaid reasoirs rt is ordered that let the respondent authoritles pass an order on the application filed by the petitioners for prc'''isicnal release of the goods subject to the conditions that a) The petltioner shall pay/deposit the enhanced duty amolrnt On recetpt of such enhanced dutli amount paid by the petitioners. the goccls in question shali i:e released within a period of four (04) ur'eeks thereafter.
3 b) For paymbnt of such duty, quantification shall be made by the Customs forthwith within one (Ol ) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such quantification, the payment shall be imrnediately 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. 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 rnade clear that so far as the condition of the petitioner that demmurage charges tiil date, for the goods be considered for waiver, in this regard, if any application is filed by the petitioners seeking such a waivei"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 lvorth 10 percent of the total price of the goods imported by them. Fr.rrther, 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 that of relevant price and details of the respective transactions shall be maintained and made available to the respondent authorities from time to time.
Pursuant to the said interim direction and upon the petitioner therein fulfilling the conditions stipulated by the High Court, the seized goods \!'ere released to the petitioner. The said order of releasing of the goods was subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Courl; whele the IJon'ble Supreme Court in 4 SLP.No.42808/24, ciatecl:'01'2025' has reftrsed to intert-ere with the order Passed b.v this Bench
Ho*'ever, as t'egarrls the proceedings before the adjudicating autholity is concerncd' rhe flon'ble Sttpretnc Clourt pemitted the a judicating authoril.v to proceed and riecidc 'h" 'u''" strictly in accordance rvith lat fhe petitioner is also held entitled for pafticipation in the actj udicating proceedings'
Pursuant to tlrc dispri:;al of tlie SLP, ttris Courl has disposed of all such *'rit petitions ri'herebl' the soods rvere released and the proceedings rvere pencling bi:Ibre the adjudicating authority'
Similal nature cti'lacts are also tlrere in the instant case also where the stage at this.]'iir'':lttt'e is onl1 thc seizttre metno and prayer is also only tbr an irrreritl'i ieiease oi the seized goods'
In the factual trratrix narrated in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considcrecl opir.rion that the instant writ petition also thereforecanbeclispo:'.'ctli.atthearltr-rissicrrstageitself.Reserving the right of the adjudic:tting alrthority to take appropriate decision
5 in the proceedings after permitting the petitioner to represent before the adjudicating authority:
Thus, tbr all the atbresaid 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 the enhanced duty amount. On receipt of such enhanced duty amount paid by the petitioners, the goods in question shall be released u,ithin a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. b) For payment of such duty, quanl.ification shall be made by the Customs tbrthrvith rvithin one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such quantitication, the payment shall be immediately made by the petitioners and on receipt of the payment in entiretl , the go<-rds shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of lbur (04) weeks. c) It is made clear that this older rvill not stand in the way for Customs Departrnent to go ahead with the further proceedings including the adjudication in the manner known to law.
6 d) It is lir r"ihrl made clear that sc'' far as the condition of the petitioner that demurrage charges till date. fbr the goocls hc considered fbi rvaiver- in this regard. if an-v application is tiled by the petitioners seeking such a r't'ai'iet' oi demurrage charges' the same shall be consiclered and elecideil bv the respondents objectivell..
In additior, thc p':titioners are also dirccted to provide a bank guarantee worlh l0 peicenL olthe total price of the goods impofted by thern. Fufther. it is aiso orclered that ir.r the event if the petitioners upon release of the goocls piovisionaliv mahcs tind sell the supply to their custorners. details o1- the customers ihal of reler,'ant price and details of the respecti\re trtinsections shatl b'e maintained and made al'ailable to the t'esporr'-i"n1 ;1g1[6rities ]iorr time to time'
Needless to uretrtir::.i that the ad.ludicaLing authority in the process of cleciding l!.ii.' srine rvould uot be in an1' manner influenced by the orde ,.oiconditionai rclease ordered by this Court' The authority shali decicle the same consiclering the objections and contentions thal rvortld t-,e r"a!sed oil either side.
7 To SA BS
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applicarions pending, if any, shall stand closed. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER
The Secretary, Union of lndia, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, GoW. of lndia, New Delhi.
J6int Commissioner of Customs (lmports), GST Bhavan, Basheebagh, Hyderabad - 500004. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Customs lCD, Timmapur - 509325, Telangana.
Superintendent of Customs (lCD-Timmapur), Hyderabad Customs ' Commissionerate, Hyderabad, Telangana.
One CC to SRI AKKAPEDDI SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRl. DOMINIC FERNANDES (SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBIC), Advocate (OPUC)
Two CD Copies I t 1 I 6
HIGH COURT DATED: 2810412026 ORDER WP.No.13613 ot 2026 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. TA tzol I F\t t Irr q (vele g oE JUN2o26 1 t t lssr
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.