M/S.Gaurik Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court, noting the pendency of similar writ petitions and the stage of the proceedings (only a seizure memo), decided to dispose of the instant writ petition at the admission stage. Following a precedent set in a similar case (W.P.No.12489 of 2025), 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 within four weeks of release, with quantification of duty to be made by Customs within one week of the order. The Court clarified that this order would not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. It also directed that any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges 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 maintain details of customer transactions upon provisional release. The adjudicating authority was instructed not to be influenced by this conditional release order and to decide the matter considering objections from both sides. The writ petition was allowed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Gaurik Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated 06-11-2025, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (ICD-Timmapur), the fourth respondent. The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 110 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 29-10-2025, bearing No. 5376907. The petitioner also filed an interim application seeking the provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The High Court noted that similar writ petitions of identical nature had been considered by the same bench, which had previously granted conditional interim orders for the release of seized goods.

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, thereby warranting its setting aside and the release of the imported consignment? (Question of law and fact, turning on the powers of the Customs authority under relevant provisions and the interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy 2023). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, seeking the setting aside of the seizure memo and the release of the goods. They also sought provisional release to avoid irreparable loss. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and Customs authorities, did not explicitly record arguments against the provisional release or the challenge to the seizure memo in the provided text. However, their role as respondents implies a defense of the seizure action.