M/S. Digital Print Solutions vs. The Commissioner Of Customs (Hyderabad Ii) Imports

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Digital Print Solutions, imported second-hand digital multifunction print, copy, and scanning machines. The goods were cleared vide Bill of Entry No. 7125543 dated January 27, 2026. Subsequently, the respondents, Customs authorities, issued a seizure memo dated February 4, 2026, seizing the imported goods. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the seizure memo and seeking the release of the goods on payment of applicable duties, along with a waiver of demurrage charges. The petitioner also sought provisional release of the goods through an interim application. The court noted that similar writ petitions involving seizure of goods by Customs authorities had been considered by the same bench.

Held

The Court, following its previous orders in similar writ petitions, directed the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the seized goods. This release is subject to specific conditions: (a) the petitioner must pay/deposit the enhanced duty amount, and the goods shall be released within four weeks thereafter. (b) The Customs authorities are to quantify the duty amount within one week of receiving the order, and upon payment by the petitioner, the goods will be released within the aforementioned four-week period. (c) The order does not preclude the Customs Department from proceeding with further adjudication proceedings as per law. (d) Any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges shall be considered and decided objectively by the respondents. Additionally, the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of subsequent sales to customers, including prices and transaction details, for the respondent authorities. The adjudicating authority is not to be influenced by this conditional release order and must decide the matter considering objections from both sides. The writ petition was allowed in terms of these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in seizing the imported second-hand highly specialized equipment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and Meity Notification S.O. No. 2844(E) dated July 1, 2021, thereby violating the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the seizure was arbitrary and unreasonable, contrary to relevant laws and policies. They sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and panchanama, and the release of the goods on payment of applicable duties, with a waiver of demurrage charges. Contentions of the Respondents: The respondents, represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not present specific arguments in the provided text, but their actions of seizing the goods and issuing the seizure memo indicate a contention that the seizure was justified under the relevant customs laws and regulations.