M/S. A K Imports And Exports vs. The Commissioner Of Customs (Hyderabad Ii) Imports

Facts

M/s. A K Imports and Exports (Petitioner) imported secondhand highly specialized equipment, specifically digital multifunction print, copying, and scanning machines, vide Bill of Entry No. 4924338 dated 06.10.2025. The Customs authorities (Respondents) seized these goods on 27.10.2025 via a seizure memo. The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the seizure memo and seeking the release of the imported goods upon payment of applicable duties, and also prayed for a waiver of demurrage charges. The Petitioner also filed an interim application for the provisional release of the seized goods.

Held

The Court, referencing a similar writ petition (W.P.No. 12489 of 2025) previously decided by the same bench, ordered the provisional release of the seized goods subject to certain 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 duty payment. The Court clarified that this order would not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. Any application for waiver of demurrage charges is to 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 sales transactions for the released goods. The adjudicating authority is not to be influenced by this conditional release order and must decide the matter based on objections and contentions from both sides. The writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Respondent authorities in seizing the imported secondhand highly specialized equipment and refusing its clearance is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and relevant notifications? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the seizure and refusal to clear the goods were arbitrary and unreasonable, violating their fundamental 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 legality or permissibility of the import or the Petitioner's compliance with customs regulations.