M/S.Nageswara Trade vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Nageswara Trade, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated January 22, 2026, issued by the 4th respondent (Superintendent of Customs). The petitioner sought the release of 102 units of imported Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 6928497 dated January 16, 2026. The goods were seized by Customs authorities. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The case involved an interim prayer for the provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, as the petitioner claimed irreparable loss and severe hardship. The Court noted that similar writ petitions had been considered by the same bench.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage, similar to previous identical writ petitions considered by the bench. The Court ordered the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods, subject to specific conditions. These conditions included the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by the Customs within one week of receiving the order. The goods were to be released within four weeks of the enhanced duty payment. The Court clarified that this order would not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. It also stated that any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges would be considered objectively. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods and maintain records of subsequent sales. The adjudicating authority was instructed not to be influenced by this conditional release order and to decide the matter considering objections from both sides. The writ petition was allowed.

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, warranting its setting aside? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the immediate provisional release of the imported consignment of 102 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs)? (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. The petitioner also argued that they would suffer irreparable loss and severe hardship if the goods were not provisionally released. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the context implies that the respondents (Customs authorities) were the ones who seized the goods.