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 16-03-2026 issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th Respondent). The Petitioner sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and the release of its imported consignment of 94 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 07-03-2026. The goods were seized by Customs authorities. The Petitioner also sought a direction for the provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The case was heard by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage, following a similar approach adopted in previous identical 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 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. The Court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication. Additionally, the Petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods and maintain records of customer details, prices, and transactions upon provisional release. The adjudicating authority is to decide the matter without being influenced by this conditional release order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated 16-03-2026 issued by the 4th Respondent is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, thereby warranting its setting aside? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the release of its imported consignment of 94 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 07-03-2026? The Petitioner argued that the seizure memo was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, seeking the release of the imported consignment. The Respondents, represented by the Union of India and Customs authorities, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's order implies that the Customs Department would proceed with further proceedings, including adjudication, as per law.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
o INTHE HTGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI ruSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.8907 OF 2026 25.03.2026 Between: M/s Gaurik Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Parimala Sudheer . . . Petitioner AND Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Department ol Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govemment ollndia, New Delhi and 3 others . . .Respondents ORDER' (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sum Koshy) Heard Mr. K.Rama Sreenivas, leamed counsel representing Mr. Akkapeddi Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dundu Sashank, leamed counsel representing Mr. Dominic Femandes, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for the CBIC for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the seizure memo dated 16.03 .2026, issued by the 4th respondent I
2 with the further request to forthwith release the imported consignment of the multifunctional devices (94 units) under Bill of Entry No.7927203 dated 07.03.2026
Similar writ petitions of identical nature have already been considered by this Bench wherein by rvay of a conditional interim order this Bench had permitted the release of seized goods subject to the petitioner/importer fultilling cerrain conditions
One such writ petition is W.P.No.l2489 ol' 12025; where rhe goods imported were seized by the Customs authorities and by virtue of the interim order of this High Coun, the Customs authorities were ordered to release on the following conditions. For convenience, we reproduce paragraph Nos.26 & 27 of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition hereinunder:
Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that let the respondent authorities pass an order on the application filed by the petitioners for provisional release of the goods subject to the conditions that: a) The petitioner shalt pay/deposit the enhanced duty amount. On receipt of such enhanced duty amount paid by the petitioners, the goods in question shall be released within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. iII
3 {a) b) For payment of such duty, quantification shall be made by the Customs forthwith within one (O'l) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' On receipt of such quantification' the payment 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 of four (04) weeks' c) lt is made clear that this order will not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead with the further proceedings including the adjudication an the manner known to law' d) lt is further made clear that so far as the condition of the petitioner that demmurage charges till date' for the goods be considered for waiver' in this regard, if any application is filed by the petitioners seeking such a waiver of demmurage charges' the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents objectivelY. 27 ln addition, the petitioners are also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods imported by them. Further, it is also ordered that in the event if the petitioners upon release of the goods provisionally make and sell the supply to their customers, details of the customers that of relevant price and details of the respective transactions shall be maintained and made available to the respondent authorities from time to time. 5.Pursuanttothesaidinterimdirectionanduponthepetitioner therein fulfilling the conditions stipulated by the Higlr Court' the seized goods were released to the petitioner' The said order of releasing of the goods was subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; where the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I I
4 SLP.No.42808 124, datedl5.0l.2025, has refused ro interfere wirh the order passed by this Bench.
However, as regards the proceedings before the adjudicating authority is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the adjudicating authority to proceed and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner is also held entitled for partici pation in the adj udicatin g proceedi ngs.
Pursuant to the disposal ol'the SI_p, this Court has disposed of all such writ petitions whereby the goods were released and the proceedings rvere pending befbrc the adjudicating authority.
Similar nature of facts are also there in the instant case also where the stage at this.juncture is only the seizure rnemo and prayer is also only lor an interim release of the seized goods. 9. ln the lactual matrix narrated in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition also therelore can be disposed of at the admission stage itsel[. Reserving the right of the adjudicating aurhority ro take appropriate decision
5 o in the proceedings after permitting the petitioner to represent before the adjudicating authoritY
Thus, for all the atbresaid reasons, it is ordered that let the respondent authorities pass an order on the application filed by the petitioners for provisional release of the goods subject to the conditions that: a) The petitioner shalt payldeposit the enhanced duty amount. On receipt of such enhanced duty atnount paid by the petitioners, the goods in question shall be released within a period of tbur (04) weeks thereafter' b) For payment of such duty, quantification shall be made by the Customs forthwith within one (01) week from the date of receipt ol a copy of this order' C)n receipt ol such quantification, the payment shalt 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 timit of four (04) weeks' c) It is made clear that this order witl not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead with the further proceedings including the adjudication in the manner known to law.
r 6 d) It is further rnade clear that so lar as the condition of the petitioner that dcmurrage charges ti[[ date, fbr the goods be considered for u,aiver, in this regard, if any application is filed by rhe petitioners seeking such a waiver of demurrage charges, the same shall be considered and decided by thc rcspondents objectively. I l. [n addition, the petitioners are also directed ro provide a bank guarantee worth l0 percent ol- the total price ol thc goods imported by thern. Further, it is also ordered that in the event if the petitioners upon release of the goods provisionally makes and sell tlre supply to their customers, details of the customers that of relevant price and details of the respective transactions shalt be maintained and madc available to the respondent authorities frorn time to time.
Needless to mention that the adjudicating authority in the process of deciding the same would not bc in any manner influenced by the order of conditional release orderccl by this Court. The authority shall decide the same considering the objcctions and contentions that would be raised on either side. O i J iI I :
1
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closeil A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR SISTANT REGIST //II ECTION OFFICER To 7. o. PSK. TKS
The Secretary, Union of lnd Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.
Joint Commissioner of Cust Hyderabad - 500004 ia, Department of R enu Ministry of Finance, , Basheebagh, 4 5 6 oms (lmports), GST Bh Deputy Commissioner of Customs, lCD, Timmapur - 509325, Telangana Superintendent of Customs, (lCD-Timmapur) Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate, Hyderabad, Telangana One CC to SRI AKKAPEDDI SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [OPUC] One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR SC FOR CBIC IOPUC] Two CD Copies
6 HIGH COURT DATED:2510312026 ORDER WP.No.8907 of 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1.O 02 !l ll'r .': trr &6 :\ - '-\ -,(. -* ) .. l) (' @$, -t ir a, -.\ ,, ,{t: .':' l
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.