M/S.Cs Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. CS Enterprises, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated January 22, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (ICD-Timmapur), the fourth respondent. The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 108 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 6926898 dated January 16, 2026. The petitioner also sought interim relief for the provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, stating that they would suffer irreparable loss and hardship otherwise. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023.

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage. It ordered the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods subject to certain conditions. These conditions include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by the Customs within one week of receiving the order. Upon payment, the goods shall be released within four weeks. The order clarified that it would not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. The petitioner was also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of subsequent sales. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide the proceedings without being influenced by this conditional release order, considering objections from both sides. The Court noted that similar writ petitions of identical nature had been considered by the Bench, where conditional interim orders for release of seized goods were permitted, and these orders were upheld by the Supreme Court.

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? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the provisional release of the seized imported consignment of Multi-Functional Devices pending the disposal of the writ petition? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the release of the imported consignment. They also argued for provisional release of the goods to avoid irreparable loss and hardship. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's order implies that the respondents are the customs authorities involved in the seizure.