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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Arka Business Solutions, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure memo dated July 22, 2024, issued by the 4th respondent (Superintendent of Customs). The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 108 units of Multi-Function Devices, imported under Bill of Entry dated July 22, 2024. The goods were seized by the Customs authorities. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023-24. The court noted that similar writ petitions with identical facts had been considered by the bench, which had previously granted conditional interim orders for the release of seized goods.

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition, being of a similar nature to previously decided cases, could be disposed of at the admission stage. Following the precedent set in similar matters, the Court ordered the respondent authorities to 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, which the Customs authorities are to quantify within one week of receiving the order. Upon payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. The Court clarified that this order would not impede the Customs Department's right to proceed with further proceedings, including adjudication, in accordance with the law. Additionally, the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee worth 10% of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of sales to customers, including prices 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 based on objections and contentions from both sides. The writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated July 22, 2024, issued by the 4th respondent is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023-24, warranting the release of the imported consignment? The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal and sought the immediate release of the goods. The petitioner relied on previous orders of the High Court in similar matters where conditional interim relief was granted. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not present any specific arguments against the release in the provided text, but the court's order implies that the Customs Department's right to proceed with adjudication was preserved.