M/S.Kirti Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Kirti Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated January 5, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th respondent). The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 109 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 6634187 dated December 31, 2025. The goods were seized by Customs authorities. The petitioner also sought provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The petition was filed before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

Held

The High Court, referencing its previous orders in similar writ petitions (e.g., W.P. No. 12489 of 2025), decided to allow the provisional release of the seized goods subject to certain conditions. The court reasoned that this approach had been adopted in identical cases and upheld by the Supreme Court. The conditions for release include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, which the Customs authorities are to quantify within one week. The goods are to be released within four weeks of receiving the payment. The court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication. Additionally, the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee worth 10% of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of subsequent sales and customer details. The adjudicating authority is to decide the matter objectively, without being influenced by this conditional release order. The court expressly left the adjudication proceedings to be decided in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated January 5, 2026, issued by the 4th respondent is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, warranting its setting aside? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the immediate release of the imported consignment of 109 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs)? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the seizure memo was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They contended that they would suffer irreparable loss and severe hardship if the goods were not released, and therefore, sought their immediate or provisional release. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and Customs authorities, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's order implies that the respondents were expected to proceed with further proceedings including adjudication.