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 05-02-2026 issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th Respondent). The Petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 111 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 27-01-2026, bearing No. 7131105. The Petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The Petitioner also filed an interim application seeking provisional release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The Court noted that similar writ petitions with identical nature had been considered by the same bench.

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage by allowing the provisional release of the seized goods, subject to certain conditions. The Court referenced its previous orders in similar writ petitions, specifically W.P.No.12489 of 2025, which were upheld by the Supreme Court. The conditions for provisional release 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 does not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication, and that the Petitioner is entitled to participate in these proceedings. The Petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of subsequent sales for the authorities. The adjudicating authority is to decide the matter objectively, without being influenced by this conditional release order. 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 05-02-2026 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 provisional release of the imported consignment of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs)? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and the immediate release of the imported consignment. Additionally, they prayed for the provisional release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition to avoid irreparable loss and severe hardship. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Respondents. However, their presence as Respondents indicates their opposition to the Petitioner's prayer for setting aside the seizure and releasing the goods.