M/S.Marjaan Traders vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Y!/:.Yrrtggn Tr?del9, imported 107 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry No.4662591 dated 22-09-2025. The 4th respondent, the Superintendent of Customs (ICD-Timmapur), issued a seizure memo dated 29-09-2025, seizing the consignment. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the seizure memo as being without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, and to direct the release of the imported goods. The petitioner also filed an interim application for provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing irreparable loss and severe hardship.

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage, following a similar approach taken in previous identical writ petitions. The Court ordered that the respondent authorities 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, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week of the order's receipt. Upon payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. The order clarifies that it does not impede the Customs Department's further proceedings, including adjudication. The petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee of 10 percent of the total price of the goods and maintain records of sales to customers. The adjudicating authority is to decide proceedings without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 29-09-2025 issued by the 4th respondent is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the setting aside of the seizure memo and the release of the imported consignment. They also argued for the provisional release of the goods pending the writ petition's disposal, highlighting the potential for irreparable loss and severe hardship. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and Customs authorities, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding the validity of the seizure or the Foreign Trade Policy. However, their participation in the proceedings and the subsequent conditional release order implies their involvement in the seizure process.