M/S. Copy Tech Solutions vs. The Commissioner Of Customs

Held

The Court, referencing previous orders in similar writ petitions (specifically W.P. No. 12489 of 2015), decided to allow the provisional release of the seized goods subject to certain conditions. The Court held that the Petitioner shall pay/deposit the enhanced duty amount, which would be quantified by the Customs within one week of receiving the order. Upon payment, the goods would be released within four weeks. The Court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication. Regarding demurrage charges, the Court directed that any application filed by the Petitioner for waiver would be considered and decided objectively by the respondents. Additionally, the Petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and to maintain records of sales transactions for the authorities. The adjudicating authority was instructed to proceed with the adjudication without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Facts

M/s. Copy Tech Solutions (the Petitioner) imported 111 units of second-hand highly specialized equipment, digital multi-function print and copying machines. The goods were covered by Bill of Entry No. 6202474 dated 10.12.2025. The Customs authorities, through a seizure memo dated 16.12.2025 issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th Respondent), seized these goods. The Petitioner challenged this seizure and sought the release of the goods upon payment of applicable duties. The Petitioner also filed an interim application for provisional release of the goods. This writ petition is similar in nature to other petitions previously considered by the same bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the imported second-hand multi-function print and copying machines by the Customs authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to law, violating the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the provisional release of the seized goods upon payment of applicable duties, with a waiver of demurrage charges? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the seizure memo and the refusal to allow clearance of the goods were arbitrary and contrary to the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and Meity Notification S.O. 2844(E) dated 01.07.2021. They contended that their fundamental rights were violated and sought immediate release of the goods on payment of applicable duties, along with a waiver of demurrage charges. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Revenue or Customs authorities. However, their action of seizing the goods and the subsequent proceedings indicate their stance that the seizure was justified.