M/S.Unistar Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Unistar Enterprises (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated 01.04.2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (Respondent No. 4). The Petitioner sought the release of 118 units of imported Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 8159306 dated 18.03.2026. The Petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The Petitioner also filed an interim application seeking provisional release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, stating that irreparable loss and severe hardship would be suffered otherwise. The case was heard by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.
Held
The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself, following a pattern established in similar previous 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 depositing the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week of receiving the order. Upon receipt of the payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. 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. If the Petitioner sells the goods after provisional release, details of customers, prices, and transactions must be maintained and made available to the respondent authorities. The adjudicating authority is not to be influenced by this order and must decide the matter considering objections from both sides. The Petitioner is entitled to participate in the adjudicating proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seizure memo dated 01.04.2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought a writ of mandamus to set aside the seizure memo and direct the release of the imported consignment. They also prayed for the provisional release of the goods pending the writ petition to avoid irreparable loss and severe hardship. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Revenue or State respondents. However, the Court's order implies that the Customs authorities had seized the goods. The Court referred to previous similar writ petitions where conditional interim orders were granted for the release of seized goods.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or relied upon in the judgment text provided, beyond general reference to Foreign Trade Policy and the powers of Customs authorities.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Cou( made the following: ORDER
--a- .,/ 7 THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JTJIJI'ICE P.SAM KOSHY AN'T) TTIE IIONOURABLE SRI .IUS-I'I(.[] NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.l(l47tl ot2026 []etwee'n: M/s. Llnistar f'lnterprises. Ncu, Dclhi Pctilioncr A nt1 llnioli o1'India. rcn.b3, its Sccrctar'
Del)aitlnent of Revcnue. lVlinislrv oi irinan(:c. (iovt.of Iudia. Nc'rv Delhi ernd orhcrs- . . . Rcspondents ORDER, (tcr lion hle ,Sri .Justict i) Sr,,;rr {,-ri.r/rr / Heard Mr.K.Rama Slinivxs. learncd counscl representing Mr.Akkapeddi Slinivas, lcarnecl c()unsel lbr the petitioner; Mr.N.Bhtrjangr llao. lrerned l.)epir... S,rli,.:itor Gcneral oi lndia, appearing for respondent No. i and \4r.Dorninic Femandes, lean-red Sc-nior Standing (iounsel t'oi thr ('RlC. appearing fbr respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the recor<J. 2. 'l'he instanl wlit petit.ion hir: bseu trlc-d assailing the seizule memo, dated 01.01.2026, issued irt, the 4'r' respondent with the lurthel requesl to forthwith release the irnported consignment of the multifuuctional devices (tl8 urrits) urrcicr'[]ill of Entry No.8l59-106 dated 18.03.2025. t Da te:011.0J.2026
2 i. Similar writ petitions oi'iclentical rtutlrro have already been considered by this Bench lvltcrcirr i-r-.'- wa-r' o1 : cortditio,'tal intelirrr order this Bench haci perrnittc<l thc' i':iea:rc ol':reize'd goods subject io the petitioner/i rnpor-ter tuliiliing r:erta,n conditior.ts.
CJne such writ petition is W.P.No. l24tl9 ol .1025; rvhere the goods irnported were seized thr: Cusl.oms aulirorities and bv virtuc of the interirn ordcr o1' ttri:, I{igh Coult, the CLrstoms authorities rvere ordered t(l rele a:ie on iire tollowing conditions- For collvenlencc. we reptodut:e l--aragfirph Nos.2t', {L l7 ot'the order passed in thc afbresaid ra,r-il pi:iilion hereinurrdel: 26- 'l hus. fbr all Lhe albrr:;aid :easoir-<. rt is: ordeleci that let the respondcnt aLrthotities pilss arr oi:(lor i)n the application tilcd by the pctitioncrs liu prorisioral rslcasr ol the go(rd..r subject 10 the conditions that: a) fhe petitioncr- shaii par dep(rsi( ti'ic cnhancr:d c uty an)ount. On receipt of such enhanceC dut:.' anlorinr paid bi, the pt:titioncrs, the goods in qLrestion shali t'c reic:.rseil u'ithrn a pcliod of four (0zl) u eeks thereaticr b) For pal,mcnt ol suclr dtrti,. o r.rantillcatiou shall bc made by the Customs lbrth',r ith 'ulirlrin onu: (01 r week liom the date of receipt of a cop\ o1' thii ,)r'i1c.- i )n iec'- Lirl oi -.uch tluantilication. 1hc par'mcnt shall bc iurnr,:rlr:s1,-,!'1, 6.1;1ds by ihc petiti<,ners and on reccipt of the pa\llrcnl il cntilctv- tli,: g.-,ods shall be releascd as indicatcd abore at tl)c ()ilte. li:ltit o1-rirui r'{):l).,1r:ik:. br
- c) lt is tnade clear that this order will not stand in thc way for Customs Dcpartment kr go alrc:rd tith tlic lurther proccedings including the adjudication in the luanuel known to larv. dl It is lirrtlrcr macle clear thal so l'ar rs the condition of the pctitioner thal dernniulagc chargcs ti[[ datc, tbr the goods be considered tbl taiver'. in tlris regaLd. il' an1' apptication is filed br thc potitioners secking such a uair,cL o['dentmuragc charges. the sanrc shall be considered and decidcd bv the rcspondcnts oblcctively. 27. [n addition. the petitioncrs arc a]so directed to providc a bank gurlanlce worth l0 percent of thc total price ol the goods inrported b1 thcrn. Ftrrtt:cr, iL is aisLr or-deled that in thc cvent il the petitioners upon release o['the goods plovisionall_r' nrake and sell thc supply to lheiI custor.ners- dctails of the custonters that ol rclcvant pricc and details crf thc rcspectivc transactions shall bc uraintaincd ancl mude availablc k) thc rcspondent authorilies lionr tin)c to time.
Pursuant to the said interim direction and upon the petitioner therein filfilling the conditions stipulated by the t{igh Court, the seized goods vvele released to the petitiorler. The said ordcr of releasing of the goods was subjccted to challenge belbre the Hon'ble Sr.rpreme Court; rvhere the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in SLP.No.42808124, datedli.Ol .2025, has lefused to interfere w.ith the order passed by this Bench
4
Howevcr, as regarcls the lrloceedirrgs t,t-'forc lhe ad.itrdicating authority is concerncd. the ilon'ble Sulllerne Coutt periritted the adlrrdicating authoritv to procecd arrd tlecide [!rc :;anre strictly in accordance u,ith Iar'r', -l-hc pctil-ionel is also lield entitled lor parlicipation in the adjtLdicating proceedings.
Pursuant to tlie disposa! ol'ttrt SI-P. this (lotLrt has disposed of all such u,rit petitions wlt.'r'cb1' the goods u'erc released and the pioceedings rvere pendiirg beicr,: ther ad.iLrdicaling ar-.thority
Similar nature of iac! ; ulc also thc're in the irstant case also ri,hcrc the stage at this-iunctr.iir is only lhe seizurc memo and prayer is also only fbr an interim r:c,lcasc o{ ttte seiz:ed good:t. 9. ln the factutrl nratrix nili'iilr'd in tlie Prcceding paragraphs, vic: ,rrc o1- the considered c'pinit-.rL tliirt ihe instar:t ua it pelition also therefbre can be disposcd ol':rt ti',.: arl'.^rission stage its-lt-. lleserving the right o1- the adjudicating authoritv to tak*: appr,rpliate decision in the procecdings aftel pcr-rr:iltirr.3 the pctil.ioncr to lepresent befbre the adj udicating authorit3, : I 0. 'f hus, tbr all thc a fbresaid i'.-asons, it i-\ ord(lrccl that let the respondent authoritics i)ass ri,'i,'rdel-oir Llre aprplication fileit.hy the -- 5 Fetitioner tbr provisional releasc of the goods subject to the conditions that: ") 'l'lrc petitioncr- :;liall 1_.n1./4grosit the elhance<l dutv arnount. ()n r.eceipt of sirclt c.nhanced duty amount paid by the peritioners, the goods in question shall be released within a period of lbur.(04.1 weeks thereafter. b) For payrncnt ol such dutr., quantification shall be made by the Customs lorthrvith within one (01) week fronr thc date of receipl of a copy of this order. On receipl_ of sui:h quantification. tlte payment shall be irrtncdiatcll rnade by the pctitioner.s and on receipt of the payrnellt in entiret-y, the goocis shall be released as indicated above at rhe ourer. lirn it ol. fbur (04) weeks. c) It is made clear that this or.der will not stand in thc way fbr Custorns Dcprrftrnent to go ahead with the l'urther procecdings including the adjudication in the manne[ known to law. d) I[ is l .iher nracle clear that so fbr as the condition of the petitioner that dernmurage charges till date, fbr the goods be considered tbr rvaiver, in this regard, if any application is liled by the petitioners seeking such a w.aiver. ol'dennturage charges, the sarne shall be considered zrnd deciflecl by the respondents ec obj c t
I l. In addition, thc p,:titioncr is trlso dilected ttr plor,ide ar birnk guarantee ri,orth [ 0 perceni it i't]rc total ;-.lr'ice ol f l',e good.r iurported by thcrn. F urther, it is also orrl..rccl r-hart in the cvenr il the petitioner tupon releasc of the goods pio.,:s',.rnalil riraltcs lrnd seii r.he supply to their custorrers, details of tlle cii:;lorncrs that of t,eievant price and details ol the respectivc transocti(-'i-rs r;hi:ll bc irrainr.rined and rnadc available to the respondent aurh,rri!i*s Iioni tirre 1o lirne 12 Needless to r.itention rhat the ariiir<liclir-ing lruthor.itv in the process of deciding the srrrrir. r,;orrlci i-ro1 bi: rrr ant, manner influenced b1 tlre or-del r'1-cr;niilicnal i(]ic.r e ot.ilcreci by this Court l'he atrthority shall decids- tlrr.' sltr-r.: cc;,:;idcritrg tlie ol:jections and contentions that woulci bc r.risrrl L)lt c'ithcr sid':.
Accordingly, this r.r,r'it prliit-ic,rr is ai)orred. lrlo or.der as .Lo COSIS r\f iscellaneous aoplir:arrt,r',s p{jii(iing. if any, shtrll stand closed A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER
The Secretary, Union of lndia, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.
Joint 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, Telanoana //// To 5 One CC to SRt AKKAPEDDt SRtN|VAS, Advocate tOpUCI 6 One CC to SRt DOM|N|C FERNANDES, SENTOR SC rOi CB|C [OPUC]
One CC to SRt N.BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Soticitor Generat or rriJia [O-iUC1 ?s[].,^ /^n.npies GJP ."- krt
HIGH COURT DATED: 0810412026 ORDER WP.No.10478 ot 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS iir- .'. ; \ ,7.t7s^ ,/,,-e 4l A . ';t. th \r,roV, '.* n- -<s A oLT1-'-t !. s T t , ttt li]26 '/: () *. r) GS' I
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.