M/S. Gaurik Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Gaunk Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated 05.02.2026, issued by the 4th respondent (Superintendent of Customs). The petitioner sought the setting aside of this seizure memo and the release of their imported consignment of 108 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 7232874 dated 31.01.2026. The petitioner also sought provisional release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The respondents are the Union of India and various Customs authorities.

Held

The Court, referencing previous identical writ petitions decided by the same bench, allowed the writ petition. 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. The goods are to be released within four weeks of the enhanced duty payment. The Court clarified that this order does not prevent the Customs Department from proceeding with further adjudication proceedings as per law. It was also made clear that any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges would be considered and decided objectively. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of customer details, prices, and transactions upon provisional release and sale. The adjudicating authority is to decide the matter without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 05.02.2026, issued by the 4th respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, thus warranting its setting aside and the release of the imported consignment under Bill of Entry dated 31.01.2026? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure memo was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the setting aside of the seizure and the release of the imported goods. They also prayed for the provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition to avoid irreparable loss and hardship. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, their role as the seizing authority implies a defense of the seizure action.