M/S. Copy Tech Solutions vs. The Commissioner Of Customs

Facts

The petitioner, an importer, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure memo dated 11.09.2025, issued by the 4th respondent (Superintendent of Customs). The petitioner sought the release of 121 units of second-hand specialized copying and scanning machines imported vide Bill of Entry No. 4224698 dated 01.09.2025. The goods were seized by the Customs authorities. The petitioner also sought a direction to release the goods upon payment of applicable duties and a waiver of demurrage charges. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus.

Held

The High Court, noting that similar writ petitions with identical nature of facts had been considered and disposed of by the same bench, decided to dispose of the present writ petition at the admission stage. 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, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week. Upon payment, the goods are to be released within four weeks. The order clarifies that it will not impede further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department. The petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee of 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods and maintain records of sales transactions. The adjudicating authority is to decide the proceedings without being influenced by this conditional release order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the imported second-hand specialized copying and scanning machines by the Customs authorities was arbitrary and contrary to law, necessitating their release on payment of applicable duties? (Question of law and fact, concerning the Customs Act, 1962, and the Import-Export Policy 2023). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. They argued that the seizure was contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and relevant notifications. They sought the release of goods on payment of applicable duties and waiver of demurrage charges. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not present specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the seizure. The judgment indicates that the stage was at the seizure memo and the prayer was for interim release.