M/S.Asian Copiers vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Asian Copiers, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated 17-04-2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (ICD-Timmapur). The petitioner's imported consignment of 114 Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs), under Bill of Entry dated 13-04-2026 bearing No. 8650095, was seized. The petitioner sought to set aside the seizure memo as being without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, and requested the immediate release of the consignment. The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal and sought interim relief. The Court noted that similar writ petitions had been considered by the same bench, where conditional interim orders were passed for the release of seized goods.

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage itself, following the precedent set in similar writ petitions. The Court ordered that the respondent authorities shall pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods, subject to certain 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. Upon payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. It was clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication. The Court also directed that any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges till the date of seizure should be considered objectively by the respondents. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain details of customers and transactions if the goods are sold provisionally. The adjudicating authority is to decide the matter without being influenced by this conditional release order, considering objections from both sides. The writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 17-04-2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, warranting its setting aside? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the immediate release of the imported consignment of 114 Multi-Functional Devices under Bill of Entry No. 8650095 dated 13-04-2026? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure memo was issued without jurisdiction and in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the quashing of the seizure memo and the release of their imported goods. The petitioner relied on previous orders of the High Court in similar matters where goods were released provisionally. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the context implies that the respondents, being the customs authorities, had seized the goods and were defending their action. The Court's order suggests a procedural path involving provisional release and adjudication, indicating the respondents' role in the ongoing process.