M/S. Digital Print Solutions vs. The Ministry Of Electronics And It

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage, similar to other identical writ petitions previously considered by the Bench. The Court directed 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 quantification, which the Customs department must undertake within one week of receiving the order. The Court clarified that this order would not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. It also stipulated that any application for waiver of demurrage charges would be considered and decided objectively. 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 customer details, prices, and transactions for inspection. The adjudicating authority was instructed to decide the proceedings without being influenced by this conditional release order, considering objections from both sides.

Facts

M/s. Digital Print Solutions (the petitioner) imported second-hand highly specialized equipment, specifically Digital Multifunction Print, Copying and Scanning Machines, vide Bill of Entry No. 5212205 dated 20.10.2025, for 233 units. The Customs authorities (Respondents No. 2 to 5) seized these goods based on a seizure memo dated 10.11.2025. The petitioner challenged this seizure and sought the release of the goods on payment of applicable duties, arguing the action was arbitrary and contrary to law. The petitioner also sought a waiver of demurrage charges. This writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the seizure arbitrary and to direct the release of the goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Respondent authorities in seizing the imported second-hand specialized equipment, specifically Digital Multifunction Print, Copying and Scanning Machines, vide seizure memo dated 10.11.2025, and refusing clearance is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and Meity Notification S.O. No. 2844(E) dated 01.07.2021, thereby violating the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the seizure and refusal to clear the goods were arbitrary and unreasonable, violating statutory provisions and constitutional rights. They sought the release of the goods upon payment of applicable duties and a waiver of demurrage charges. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, their actions of seizing the goods and refusing clearance indicate a dispute regarding the import or classification of the goods.