M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Arka Business Solutions, filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated February 5, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (ICD-Thimmapur), the 4th respondent. The petitioner sought the release of their imported consignment of 118 units of Multi-Function Devices, imported under Bill of Entry No. 7074823 dated January 23, 2026. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The petition also included an interim application seeking the immediate release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential severe loss and hardship.

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage, similar to other writ petitions of identical nature previously considered by the Bench. The Court ordered that the respondent authorities 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 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 impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication, and that the adjudicating authority's decision would not be influenced by this conditional release. The petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee of 10 percent of the total price of the goods and maintain records of subsequent sales. The adjudicating authority is to decide the matter considering objections from both sides. The issue of waiver of demurrage charges was to be considered objectively if an application was filed by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated February 5, 2026, issued by the 4th respondent is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction, asserting that the action taken by the respondent authorities was contrary to the prevailing Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the immediate release of their imported consignment. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the context implies that the respondents, being customs authorities, had seized the goods, presumably based on certain legal grounds which were not detailed in the provided text. The court's order suggests that the respondents were permitted to proceed with further proceedings, including adjudication.