M/S.Gaurik Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Gaurik Enterprises (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated 05-01-2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th Respondent). The Petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 110 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 31-12-2025. The goods were seized by Customs authorities. The Petitioner also sought a provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The matter was heard by the High Court for the State of Telangana.

Held

The Court, referencing similar writ petitions previously considered by the same bench, decided to dispose of the instant writ petition at the admission stage. The Court 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 Customs within one week. The goods are 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. The Petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods and maintain details of subsequent sales. The adjudicating authority is to decide the proceedings without being influenced by this conditional release order. The Petitioner's right to participate in adjudicating proceedings was upheld.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated 05-01-2026, issued by the 4th Respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, thereby warranting its setting aside? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the provisional release of the imported consignment of 110 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) pending the disposal of the writ petition? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the seizure memo was issued without jurisdiction and in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They argued for the immediate release of the imported consignment. They also sought provisional release of the goods to avoid irreparable loss and severe hardship. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records that learned counsel for the respondents appeared and the record was perused. No specific arguments from the revenue's side are detailed in the provided text.