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

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage, following a similar precedent set in other writ petitions of identical nature. 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 include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, which the Customs department is to quantify within one week of receiving the order. Upon payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. The Court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication. 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 to customers, including prices and transaction details, for the respondent authorities. The adjudicating authority is to decide the matter without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Facts

M/s. Copy Tech Solutions (the petitioner) imported 117 units of second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines. The goods were seized by the Customs authorities (respondents) via a seizure memo dated 03.12.2025. The petitioner challenged this seizure and sought the release of the goods, which were covered by Bill of Entry No. 5904376 dated 25.11.2025. The petitioner argued that the seizure and refusal to clear the goods were arbitrary and contrary to law. The petitioner also sought a waiver of demurrage charges. This writ petition was filed seeking an order to release the goods upon payment of applicable duties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Respondent authorities in seizing the imported second-hand highly specialized equipment and refusing to allow clearance is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and Notification S.O. No. 2844(E) dated 01.07.2021? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure and refusal to clear the goods were arbitrary and unreasonable, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. They relied on the Import-Export Policy 2023 and Notification S.O. No. 2844(E). Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their actions of seizing the goods and refusing clearance imply a contention that such action was justified under the relevant customs laws and policies.