M/S.Gaurik Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Gaurik Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated 12.02.2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th Respondent). The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 103 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 31.01.2026. The goods were seized by the Customs authorities. The petitioner also filed an interim application seeking the provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, stating that irreparable loss and severe hardship would be suffered otherwise. The petitioner is represented by Sri K. Rama Sreenivas, and the respondents are represented by various counsel including the Deputy Solicitor General of India and Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC.

Held

The Court ordered 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 receiving the order. The goods are to be released within four weeks of receiving the enhanced duty payment. The Court clarified that this order would not prevent the Customs Department from proceeding with further proceedings, including adjudication, in accordance with law. The petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods and to maintain and make available details of customers and transactions if the goods are sold after provisional release. The adjudicating authority is not to be influenced by this conditional release order and must decide the matter considering objections from both sides. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with similar orders in prior cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 12.02.2026, issued by the 4th Respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, warranting its setting aside? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the immediate release of the imported consignment of 103 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 31.01.2026? The Petitioner argued that the seizure memo was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, and sought the release of the consignment. The Petitioner also sought provisional release of the goods to avoid irreparable loss and hardship. The Respondents, represented by various counsel, did not explicitly record their arguments in the judgment, but their presence indicates opposition to the petitioner's prayer for unconditional release. The Court noted that similar writ petitions had been considered by the Bench, leading to conditional interim orders for the release of seized goods.