M/S.Gaurik Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

Gaurik Enterprises, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure memo dated 08.10.2025, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (ICD-Timmapur), the fourth respondent. The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 99 Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No. 4873891, dated 03.10.2025. The petitioner also sought a provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and hardship. The case involves imported goods seized by Customs authorities, and the petitioner is seeking interim relief for their release.

Held

The Court, referencing its previous orders in similar writ petitions, decided to dispose of the instant writ petition at the admission stage. It ordered that the respondent authorities shall pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods, subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner depositing the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week of receiving the order. Upon payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. The Court clarified that this order does not preclude the Customs Department from proceeding with further adjudication proceedings as per law. It also stated that any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges would be considered and decided objectively. Additionally, the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee worth 10% of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of subsequent sales for the authorities. The adjudicating authority is to decide the matter without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 08.10.2025, issued by the Superintendent of Customs, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, warranting its setting aside? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the immediate release of the imported consignment of 99 Multi-Functional Devices? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the seizure memo was issued without jurisdiction and in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and the immediate release of their imported consignment. The petitioner also sought provisional release of the goods to avoid irreparable loss and hardship. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, the context implies that the Customs authorities seized the goods, and their actions are being challenged.