M/S.Gaurik Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Gaurik Enterprises (the Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated January 13, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (the 4th Respondent). The Petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 117 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 6843201 dated January 12, 2026. The Petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The Petitioner also sought an interim order for the provisional release of the seized goods, stating that failure to do so would result in irreparable loss and hardship.

Held

The Court noted that similar writ petitions of identical nature had been considered by the same Bench, where conditional interim orders were passed for the release of seized goods. The Court referred to a previous order in W.P. No. 12489 of 2025, which permitted the release of seized goods subject to the petitioner fulfilling certain conditions. These conditions included paying the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be done by Customs within one week and payment by the petitioner immediately thereafter, leading to release within four weeks. The Court also clarified that this order would not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, and that any application for waiver of demurrage charges would be considered objectively. A bank guarantee of 10 percent of the total price of the goods was also required, along with the maintenance of transaction details. The Court applied this precedent to the present case, allowing the writ petition at the admission stage. The adjudicating authority was reserved the right to take appropriate decisions after permitting the petitioner to represent their case. The Court directed the respondent authorities to pass an order on the application for provisional release subject to the same conditions as outlined in the previous order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated January 13, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction, and that the goods should be released. They relied on the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Respondents regarding the legality of the seizure or the Foreign Trade Policy. However, the Court's order implies that the Customs authorities have the right to proceed with further proceedings, including adjudication.