M/S.Excel Copiers vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Excel Copiers (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated 01-04-2026 issued by the 4th Respondent, the Superintendent of Customs (ICD-Timmapur). The Petitioner sought the release of 111 units of imported Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 17-03-2026, which were seized. The Petitioner also prayed for a provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The Petitioner is represented by Mr. K. Rama Srinivas, and the Respondents are represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India and Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC.

Held

The Court, referencing a previous identical writ petition (W.P. No. 12489 of 2015) decided by the same Bench, ordered the provisional release of the seized goods subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the Petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount within a specified period after quantification by Customs, providing a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods, and maintaining detailed records of sales transactions for the released goods. The Court clarified that this order would not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. The Supreme Court had previously refused to interfere with a similar conditional release order. The adjudicating authority is permitted to proceed with adjudication, uninfluenced by this conditional release order, and must consider objections from both sides. The writ petition was allowed on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 01-04-2026, issued by the 4th Respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, warranting its setting aside? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. They sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and the release of their imported consignment. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Revenue or State. However, the context implies that the seizure was made by Customs authorities, and the subsequent proceedings and conditional release were handled by them.