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 14.05.2025 issued by the 4th respondent (Superintendent of Customs). The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 102 units of Multi-Function Devices, imported under Bill of Entry dated 28.04.2025. The goods were seized by the Customs authorities. 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 respondents are the Union of India and various Customs authorities.

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage by granting conditional release of the seized goods, reserving the right of the adjudicating authority to proceed with further proceedings. The Court ordered that the respondent authorities pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release subject to specific conditions. These conditions include the petitioner paying/depositing the enhanced duty amount within four weeks of quantification, which the Customs authorities must quantify within one week of receiving the order. The order clarifies that it does not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. It also states that any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges will be considered objectively. Additionally, the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee worth 10% of the total imported goods' price and maintain records of sales to customers, including details of customers, prices, and transactions, for the respondent authorities. The adjudicating authority is directed not to be influenced by this conditional release order and to decide the matter based on the contentions of both sides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure memo dated 14.05.2025 issued by the 4th respondent 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 102 units of Multi-Function Devices under Bill of Entry dated 28.04.2025 pending the disposal of the writ petition? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure memo was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. They sought the release of the imported consignment. The petitioner relied on previous orders of the High Court in similar matters where conditional release of seized goods was permitted. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or State. However, the context implies that the revenue authorities seized the goods and were defending their action. The court's order suggests the revenue's participation in the adjudication proceedings.