M/S. Digital Print Solutions vs. The Commissioner Of Customs (Hyderabad Ii) Imports

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Digital Print Solutions, imported 211 units of second-hand digital multifunction print, copying, and scanning machines. The goods were imported vide Bill of Entry No. 7545796 dated 16.02.2026. The Customs authorities, specifically Respondent No. 4 (Superintendent of Customs), seized the goods vide seizure memo dated 05.03.2026 and refused clearance. The petitioner challenged this action, seeking release of the goods upon payment of applicable duties and waiver of demurrage charges, alleging the seizure was arbitrary and contrary to law. The petitioner also sought provisional release of the goods.

Held

The Court, referencing its previous orders in similar writ petitions, decided to allow the writ petition with conditional release of the seized goods. The Court directed the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release, subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount within four weeks of quantification by the Customs. The Customs authorities were ordered to quantify the duty within one week of receiving the order. The Court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication. It was also made clear that any application for waiver of demurrage charges would be considered objectively. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee of 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of subsequent sales. The adjudicating authority was instructed to decide the proceedings without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the imported second-hand specialized equipment by the Customs authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and Meity Notification S.O. No. 2844(E) dated 01.07.2021, thereby violating the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was arbitrary and illegal, violating their fundamental rights. They sought the release of the goods upon payment of applicable duties and waiver of demurrage charges. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the context implies the revenue justified the seizure and refusal of clearance.