M/S.Growlam Office Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Growlam Office Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated 04-02-2026 issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th Respondent). The Petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 218 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 22-01-2026. The goods were seized by the Customs authorities. The Petitioner also sought a provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The case involves the Union of India and various Customs authorities as Respondents.

Held

The Court noted that similar writ petitions of identical nature had been considered by the same Bench, wherein conditional interim orders were passed for the release of seized goods. Citing a previous order in W.P.No. 12489 of 2025, the Court directed the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of goods subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount within four weeks of quantification, which the Customs authorities must undertake within one week of the order. The Court clarified that this order would not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. It also stated that any application by the petitioner 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 goods and maintain records of customer details, prices, and transactions upon provisional release. The adjudicating authority was explicitly stated to be uninfluenced by this conditional release order and to decide proceedings based on objections from both sides. The Writ Petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated 04-02-2026 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 without jurisdiction and violated the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and the immediate release of their imported consignment. The Petitioner also argued for the provisional release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition to avoid irreparable loss. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Respondents. However, the context implies that the Respondents, being Customs authorities, seized the goods and would likely defend their action as being in accordance with law and their statutory powers.