M/S. Akshya Copier Solutions vs. The Commissioner Of Customs (Hyderabad Ii) Imports

Facts

M/s. Akshya Copier Solutions, the petitioner, imported second-hand specialized equipment, specifically copying and scanning machines, vide Bill of Entry No. 6539714 dated 26.12.2025, comprising 127 units. The Customs authorities, respondents 1 to 4, seized these goods on 07.01.2026 via a seizure memo. The petitioner challenged this seizure and the refusal to clear the goods, seeking their release on payment of applicable duties. The petitioner also sought a waiver of demurrage charges. This writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the seizure arbitrary and to direct the release of the goods.

Held

The Court, referencing a similar writ petition (W.P.No.12489 of 2025) previously decided by the same bench, ordered the provisional release of the seized goods subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, which is to 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 further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. It also directed that any application for waiver of demurrage charges should be considered objectively by the respondents. 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 for the authorities. The adjudicating authority is permitted to proceed with adjudication without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the imported second-hand specialized equipment by the Customs authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and Meity Notification S.O. No. 2844(E) dated 01.07.2021, thereby violating the petitioner's fundamental rights? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the action of the respondents in seizing the goods and refusing clearance was arbitrary, unreasonable, and in violation of statutory provisions and their fundamental rights. They sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and panchanama and the release of the goods on payment of applicable duties, along with a waiver of demurrage charges. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, their actions of seizing the goods and refusing clearance indicate a dispute regarding the import or classification of the goods, or compliance with import regulations.