M/S.City Office Equipment vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Skylark Office Machines (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated 05-03-2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th respondent). The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 194 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 7714756 dated 24-02-2026. The petitioner also sought provisional release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The respondents are the Union of India, Joint Commissioner of Customs, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, and Superintendent of Customs.

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage by allowing the provisional release of the seized goods. The Court followed a precedent set in a similar writ petition (W.P.No. 12489 of 2025), where goods were released subject to specific conditions. The conditions stipulated are: (a) the petitioner shall pay/deposit the enhanced duty amount, and upon receipt, the goods shall be released within four weeks; (b) the Customs authorities shall quantify the duty within one week of receiving the order, and upon payment, the goods shall be released within four weeks; (c) the order for release does not preclude the Customs Department from proceeding with further proceedings, including adjudication, as per law; and (d) any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges shall be considered and decided objectively by the respondents. Additionally, the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods and maintain records of customer details, prices, and transactions for inspection by the authorities. The Court clarified that the adjudicating authority would not be influenced by this conditional release order and would decide the matter based on the contentions of both sides. The issue of the seizure memo being without jurisdiction was implicitly addressed by allowing provisional release, subject to conditions, and permitting adjudication to proceed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated 05-03-2026, 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 memo was issued without jurisdiction and in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, and therefore, the imported consignment should be released. They sought an interim order for the provisional release of the goods. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, represented by various counsel, did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the seizure in the provided text. However, their presence and representation indicate their opposition to the petitioner's prayer for unconditional release. The judgment notes that the respondents did not oppose the petitioner's oral request for corrections to the petitioner's name.