M/S.Growlam Office Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Growlam Office Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated 17-04-2026 issued by the Superintendent of Customs (ICD-Timmapur). The Petitioner sought the setting aside of the seizure and the release of their imported consignment of 108 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 8648537 dated 13-04-2026. The Petitioner also filed an interim application seeking provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The Respondents are the Union of India and various Customs authorities.

Held

The Court noted that similar writ petitions of identical nature had been considered by the Bench, wherein a conditional interim order was passed permitting the release of seized goods subject to the petitioner fulfilling certain conditions. The Court referred to a previous order in W.P. No. 12489 of 2025, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Following this precedent, the Court ordered the respondent authorities to pass an order on the application for provisional release of the goods. The conditions for release include the Petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week. The goods are to be released within four weeks of payment. The Court clarified that this order does not prevent the Customs Department from proceeding with further proceedings, including adjudication. Additionally, the Petitioner is directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods and maintain records of sales transactions. The adjudicating authority is not to be influenced by this conditional release order and must decide the proceedings considering objections from both sides. The writ petition was allowed on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated 17-04-2026, issued by the 4th Respondent (Superintendent of Customs), is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, warranting its setting aside and the release of the imported consignment? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, and sought the release of the goods. They also prayed for provisional release to avoid irreparable loss. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment records that the Respondents were represented, but their specific arguments are not detailed. However, the Court's order implies that the Respondents' right to proceed with further proceedings, including adjudication, was preserved.