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

Held

The Court, referencing a prior identical writ petition (W.P.No.12499 of 2025) and its subsequent affirmation by the Supreme Court, ordered the provisional release of the seized goods. The release is conditional upon the Petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount within four weeks of quantification by the Customs authorities. The Customs are directed to quantify the duty within one week of receiving the order. The Court clarified that this order does not impede the Customs Department's right to proceed with further adjudication proceedings. The Petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee equivalent to 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of subsequent sales for the Respondents' perusal. Any application for waiver of demurrage charges is to be considered and decided objectively by the Respondents. The adjudicating authority's decision will not be influenced by this conditional release order.

Facts

M/s. Copy Tech Solutions (Petitioner) imported 118 units of second-hand highly specialized equipment, digital multifunction print and copying machines. The goods were imported vide Bill of Entry No. 5260559 dated 23.10.2025. The Customs authorities (Respondents) seized the goods on 11.11.2025 vide a seizure memo and refused to allow clearance on payment of applicable duties. The Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking release of the goods and waiver of demurrage charges, challenging the seizure as arbitrary and contrary to law. The Petitioner also sought provisional release of the goods pending adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Respondent authorities in seizing the imported second-hand specialized equipment 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.C. No. 2844(E) dated 01.07.2021, thereby violating the Petitioner's fundamental rights? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the seizure was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating their fundamental rights. They sought the release of the goods on payment of applicable duties and waiver of demurrage charges. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Respondents regarding the legality of the seizure. However, the context implies that the Respondents acted based on their assessment of the import, leading to the seizure.