M/S.Gaurik Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage, reserving the right of the adjudicating authority to take appropriate decisions in future proceedings. The Court ordered that the respondent authorities pass an order on the application filed by the petitioners for provisional release of the goods, subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week of receiving the order. The goods are to be released within four weeks of the enhanced duty payment. The Court clarified that this order would not prevent the Customs Department from proceeding with further adjudication proceedings. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of sales to customers, including prices and transaction details, for the respondent authorities. The adjudicating authority's decision-making process was not to be influenced by this conditional release order.

Facts

M/s. Gaurik Enterprises (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the Seizure Memo dated 06-11-2025 issued by the Superintendent of Customs (Respondent No. 4). The Petitioner sought to set aside the seizure and direct the release of their imported consignment of 114 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 29-10-2025. 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 Court noted that similar writ petitions had been considered by the same bench, where seized goods were permitted to be released subject to certain conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated 06-11-2025, issued by the Superintendent of Customs, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner contended that the seizure memo was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, and therefore, the imported consignment should be released. They sought a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to set aside the seizure and release the goods. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Revenue or State respondents regarding the validity of the seizure memo or its conflict with the Foreign Trade Policy. However, their participation in the proceedings implies a defense against the Petitioner's claims.