M/S.City Office Equipment vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. City Office Equipment, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated January 22, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs. The Petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 217 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 6929559 dated January 16, 2026. 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 seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship.

Held

The Court, referencing a previous identical writ petition (WP.No.12489 of 2015) decided by the same bench, ordered the provisional release of the seized goods subject to certain conditions. These conditions include the petitioner depositing the enhanced duty amount, which shall be quantified by the Customs within one week of the order. Upon payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. The Court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication, as per law. 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. The Supreme Court had previously refused to interfere with a similar order passed by this High Court. The Court disposed of the present writ petition at the admission stage, reserving the right of the adjudicating authority to take appropriate decisions in the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated January 22, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023? Petitioner's Argument: 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 release of the imported consignment. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Revenue/Respondents regarding the jurisdiction or the Foreign Trade Policy. However, the Court's order implies that the Revenue authorities are permitted to proceed with further proceedings, including adjudication, as per law.