M/S.Gaurik Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Gaurik Enterprises (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated 25-03-2026 issued by the 4th respondent (Superintendent of Customs). The petitioner sought the release of their imported consignment of 87 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 07-03-2026. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The petition also included an interim application for the 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 decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage, following a similar approach taken in identical writ petitions previously considered by the Bench. The Court ordered that the respondent authorities should pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods, subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week of receiving the order. Upon payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. The order clarifies that it will not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. The petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods and maintain records of subsequent sales. The adjudicating authority is to decide the matter objectively, uninfluenced by this conditional release order. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with a similar order passed by this Bench in another case, while permitting adjudication proceedings to continue.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seizure memo dated 25-03-2026, issued by the 4th respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the provisional release of the imported consignment of 87 units of Multi-Functional Devices pending the disposal of the writ petition? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the release of the imported consignment. They also argued for provisional release of the goods to avoid irreparable loss and severe hardship. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the context implies that the respondents, being Customs authorities, had seized the goods, and the court's order addresses the conditions for their release.
Sections Cited
Section 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
i) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND TIIE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTTCE NARSTNGRAO NANDIKONDA w.P.No.9619 of 2026 r)ate:01.0.1.2026 Between: lWs.Gaurik EnterPrises. Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Parirnala Sudheer' Hyderabad. ... Petitioner And Llnion of lndia, rep.by its SecIctarY' Department of Rcvenuc. Ministrl ol Finance, Govt'of India' New Delhi and othcrs. . . . Respondents @EB, (per llon blt Sri .lttstitt' P Sum Koshy) Heard Mr.K.Rama Sreenivas' leamed counsel rePrebenting Mr.Akkapeddi Srinir'as. lcalncd counsel for the petitioner; Mr.N.Bhujanga ltao. lcanted Deputy Solicitor General of India' appearing fbr respondent No. I and Mr'Dominic Femandes' leamed Senior Standing Clounsel lor the (ltltC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and ptt uscil tirc re cttrd'
The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the seizure rnemo, datetJ l5-0i.1015, issucd by the 4'h respondent with the further request to lorthwith release the imported consignment of the 2 multifunctional devices (87 units) under Bill of Entry No.7939049, dated,07 .03 .2026. 3. Similar writ petitions of identicat nature have already been considered by this Bench wherein by way o['a conditional interim order this Bench had permitted the release of seized goods subiect to the petitioner/importer fu I fi lti ng cerra in cond ition:;.
One such writ petition is W.p.No. 124g9 ot 2025: rvhere the goods imported were seized by thc f.ustoms authorities and by virtue of the interim order of this High Court, the Custorns authorities were ordered to release on the lbllon ins r:onclitions. For convenience, we reproduce paragraph Nos.26 & 17 ol the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition hereinundcr:
Thus, for all the afor.esaid rclscrns. ir rs ortL:rcri lhitt lcl the respondent authorities pass an oriler ol lhc ;rpplicalirrrr lllctl lrv the petitioners for provisional rcletsc rrl tlrt r:or,d:i subirct k) lhc conditions that: a) The petitioner shall par/clcposit rlrc cnh:rrrcid dut-\ att()unt. On receipt ofsuch enhanccd dLrtr rnrotirrr piriil bt thc netitioncr.s- the goods in question shall bc rclcascrl rrirhin a pcriod ol- lirur (04) weeks thereafrer. b) F'or payment ol such tiutr - qralrt lllcirt ion shall bc ruadc bv the Customs forth\\'ith s ithiu onc (0 [ ) rrcck fiofiI ttli, date 91. receipt ofa copy of this orlcr ()rr rcr:cipt olsrrch q uantilical iolt-
n the payment shall be immediately nrade by the petitioners and on receipt of the payment in entirety, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of lour (04) week. c) It is made clear that this ordcr will not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead uith the further proceedings including the adjudication in the nranncr known to law. d) It is further made clear that so lar as the condition of the petitioner that demmurage charges till date. for the goods be considered for waiver, in this regard. ifany application is filed by the petitioners seeking such a rvaivcr of demmurage charges, the same shall be considercd and dccided by the respondents objectively.
In addition, thc petitioncrs are also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth l() pcrcent ol'the total price of the goods imported by them. l"urthcr. it is also ordcred that in the event if the petitioners upon releasc ol the goods provisionally make and sell the supply to their custorners- dotails of'the customcrs that of relevant price and details ot'the respcctire transactions shall be maintained and made ar ailahlc k) thr rcspondcnt authorities from time to time.
Pursuant to the said interirn dircction and upon the petitioner therein fulfilling the conditions stipulated hy the High Court, the seized goods were rcleased to thc pctitioner. The said order of releasing of the goods u'as subjectcd to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; \\'here the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 4 SLP.No.42808124, datedl5.0l.2025, has refused to interfbre with the order passed by this Bench.
I{owever, as regards the proceedings before the adjudicating autholity is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pennitted the adjudicating authority to proceed and decide the same strictll, in accordance with law. The petitioner is also held entiLled fbr part i c ipation in the adjudicating proceedings
Pursuant to the disposal of the SLP, this Court has disposed ol'all such writ petitions whereby the goods werc released and ttrc proceedings were pending before the adjudicating authorit)
Similar nature of facts are also there in the irrstant case also ri'lre rc the slage at this juncture is only the scizure rncrno alrd praver is also only fbr an interim release of the seizcd goods
In the f'actual matrix narrate<j in the prececlin{ pullqllPhs, u,: are ol' the considered opinion that the instant rrrit fietiliorr also thcrclirre can be disposed of at the admi-ssion stagc itsL-ll-. Rcsen,irrg thc right of the adjudicating authoril.y to takc applopriate clc-cisiorr in thc proceedings after pennitting thc petitroncr to rcpresent betbrc I hc aci.i udicating authority:
T 1
Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that let the respondent authorities pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner for trrovisional release of the goods subject to the conditions that: a) The petitioner shall payldeposit the enhanced duty amount. On receipt ofsuch enhanced duty amount paid by the petitioners, the goods in question shall be released within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. b) For payment of such duty, quantification shall be made by the Customs fbrthwirh within one (01) wcek from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order. On receipt of such quantification, rhe paymenr shall be immediately made by the petitioners and on receipt of the payment in entirety, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit ol- tbur (021) weeks. c) It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead with the further proceedings including the adjudicarion in the manner known to law. d) It is further made clear that so far as thc condition of the petitioner rhar dcmrnurage charges till date, for the goods be considered fbr waiver, in this regard, if any application is tiled by the petiriorrers seeking such a waiver of dernrluragc charges. the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents objectively. t l. In addition, the petitioner is also directcd to provide a bank guarantee worth l0 percent of the total price of the goods imported by them. Further, it is also ordered that in the event if the petitioner upon release of the goods provisionalll' ntakes and sell the supply to 6 their custorners, details of the customers that of relevant price and details of the respective transactions shall be traintained and nrade available to the respondent authorities horn time to time.
Needless to mention that the ad.iudicating authority in the process ol- deciding the same would not be in any rlanner in flucnced hv the order of conditional release order.ed bv thir; Court 'l'he authoritv shall decide the same considering the objectiorrs and contentions that rvould be raised on either side. r\<:cordingly, this v,rit petition is allovred, No order as ro \'lisccllaneous applications pending, if any, shalI stand e losed A. .S.GOWRI SHANKAR ISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To 7 8 PS K, 1'KS I The Secretary. Union of lndia, Depa(ment of RArenf.re Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. '...,.' , Ministry of Finance, 2 3 4 tt Joint Commissioner of Customs (lmports), GST Bhavan, Basheebagh, Hyderabad - 500004 Deputy Commtssioner of CustomllCD, Timmapur - 509325, Telangana Superintendent of Customs (lCD-Timmapur), Hyderabad Customs - Commrssionerate, Hyderabad, Telangana One CC to SRI AKKApEDDI SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] ONC CC tO SRI N,BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA [OPUC] One CC to SRI DOIMINIC FERNANDES, SENTOR SC FOR CB|C [OPUC] Two CD Copies fJl r_'osls
HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412026 ORDER WP.No.9619 of 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS l ,,Ko'" iFiB; ,,, \) I,: I ia? ntt ?w \\. + $ * ,,..' d C,iN," ). .Y .o {.
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.