M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Arka Business Solutions, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure memo dated 05.05.2025, issued by the 4th Respondent (Superintendent of Customs). The Petitioner sought the release of their imported consignment of 108 units of Multi-Function Devices, imported under Bill of Entry dated 26.04.2025, bearing No. 9724638. The Petitioner also filed an interim application seeking the immediate release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential severe loss and hardship. The Court noted that similar writ petitions with identical issues had been considered by the Bench previously.

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage, following a pattern established in similar cases. The Court 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 paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount within four weeks of the deposit, with quantification of duty to be made by Customs within one week of the order. The Court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department from proceeding with further adjudication proceedings as per law. Additionally, the petitioner is directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of sales to customers, including price and transaction details, for the respondent authorities. The adjudicating authority is not to be influenced by this conditional release order and must decide the matter considering objections from both sides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 05.05.2025, issued by the 4th Respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, warranting its setting aside? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, and sought the release of the imported consignment. Respondents' Contention: The Respondents, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India and learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding the validity of the seizure or the applicability of the Foreign Trade Policy. However, their role as customs authorities implies a defense of the seizure and the process followed.