M/S. Copy Tech Solutions vs. The Commissioner Of Customs (Hyderabad Ii) Imports

Facts

M/s. Copy Tech Solutions (the Petitioner) imported 239 units of second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines. The goods, covered by Bill of Entry No. 6794290 dated 09.01.2026, were seized by the Customs authorities on 28.01.2026 via a seizure memo. The Petitioner sought the release of these goods upon payment of applicable duties. This writ petition was filed challenging the seizure memo and seeking a direction for the immediate release of the goods, along with a waiver of demurrage charges. The Petitioner also filed an interim application for the provisional release of the goods.

Held

The Court noted that similar writ petitions of identical nature had been considered by the Bench, wherein conditional orders were passed for the release of seized goods. Following the precedent set in those cases, the Court directed the respondent authorities to pass an order on the Petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the Petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount within a stipulated period after quantification by Customs, providing a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods, and maintaining records of sales to customers for inspection by authorities. The Court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication, and that any application for waiver of demurrage charges would be considered objectively. The adjudicating authority would decide the matter without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Respondent authorities in seizing the imported second-hand specialized equipment and refusing clearance is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and Meity Notification S.Cr No.2844(E) dated 01.07.2021, thereby violating the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the seizure and refusal to clear the goods were arbitrary and contrary to relevant laws and policies. They sought the release of the goods upon payment of applicable duties and a waiver of demurrage charges. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it refers to previous similar writ petitions where conditional release orders were passed.