M/S.Kirti Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Kirti Enterprises (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated 15-09-2025, issued by the Superintendent of Customs (4th respondent). The petitioner sought the release of an imported consignment of 106 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 11-09-2025. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The petitioner also filed an interim application seeking provisional release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing irreparable loss and severe hardship. The High Court noted that similar writ petitions had been considered by the same bench.

Held

The High Court, noting that similar writ petitions concerning seized goods had been considered by the same bench, decided to dispose of the present writ petition at the admission stage. 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. The goods are to be released within four weeks of receiving the enhanced duty payment. The Court clarified that this order would not prevent the Customs Department from proceeding with further adjudication proceedings as per law. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and to maintain and make available details of subsequent transactions to the authorities. The adjudicating authority is to decide the proceedings without being influenced by this conditional release order. The writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated 15-09-2025, issued by the 4th respondent, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the release of the imported consignment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state authorities regarding the jurisdiction or the Foreign Trade Policy. However, their role as respondents implies they are defending the seizure. The court's order suggests a procedural approach based on previous similar cases rather than a detailed legal contest on these specific points in this instance.