M/S.Unistar Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Unistar Enterprises (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated March 6, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th Respondent). The Petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 132 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 7776005 dated February 27, 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 hardship. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated, but the dispute centers around the legality of the seizure and the release of the goods.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage by allowing the provisional release of the seized goods, subject to certain conditions. This decision was based on the Court's previous orders in similar writ petitions, which were also upheld by the Supreme Court. The conditions for release include the Petitioner paying/depositing 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 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 proceedings without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 06-03-2026, issued by the 4th Respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that the seizure memo was issued without jurisdiction and in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and the release of their imported consignment. The Petitioner also argued for the provisional release of the goods pending the writ petition's disposal to avoid severe hardship. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue (Respondents) did not explicitly present arguments in the provided text. However, their role as the authority that issued the seizure memo implies a contention that the seizure was lawful and justified under the relevant provisions of law. The judgment notes that the Revenue was represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India and Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC.