M/S.Unistar Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Unistar Enterprises (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated 01-04-2026 issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th Respondent). The Petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 110 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 18-03-2026. The Petitioner also sought a provisional release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The Court noted that similar writ petitions of identical nature had been considered by the same bench, where seized goods were released subject to certain conditions.

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage, similar to other writ petitions of identical nature. The Court ordered that the respondent authorities pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner paying 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 prevent the Customs Department from proceeding with further adjudication proceedings. 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 transactions for the authorities. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide the matter without being influenced by the conditional release order.

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? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, and sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and the release of the imported consignment. The Petitioner also sought provisional release of the goods to avoid irreparable loss and hardship. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue or State respondents regarding the jurisdiction or the Foreign Trade Policy. However, the Court's order implies that the Revenue authorities were permitted to proceed with further proceedings, including adjudication, in accordance with the law.