M/S. Best Mega International vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Best Mega International, filed a writ petition challenging a Seizure Memo dated 08.06.2026 issued by the Superintendent of Customs (ICD-Timmapur). The petitioner sought to set aside the seizure and direct the release of their imported consignment of 103 units of Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) under Bill of Entry dated 25.05.2026. The petitioner also filed an interim application seeking provisional release of the goods pending the disposal of the writ petition, citing potential irreparable loss and severe hardship. The respondents are the Union of India and various Customs authorities.
Held
The Court held that the instant writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage, similar to other writ petitions of identical nature previously considered by the Bench. The Court ordered the respondent authorities to pass an order on the petitioner's application for provisional release of the goods. This release is subject to specific conditions: (a) the petitioner must pay/deposit the enhanced duty amount, with quantification to be made by Customs within one week of the order's receipt, and goods to be released within four weeks of payment; (b) the order does not preclude further proceedings, including adjudication, by the Customs Department; (c) any application by the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges shall be considered and decided objectively by the respondents; (d) the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the imported goods; and (e) details of customers, prices, and transactions must be maintained and made available to authorities if the goods are sold. The adjudicating authority's decision will not be influenced by this conditional release order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Seizure Memo dated 08.06.2026, issued by the Superintendent of Customs, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, warranting its setting aside and release of the imported consignment? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the seizure memo was issued without jurisdiction and in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. They sought the release of their imported consignment. Respondents' Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondents regarding the jurisdiction or the Foreign Trade Policy. However, the context implies that the Customs authorities seized the goods, and the court is addressing the release of these seized goods.
Sections Cited
Section 151 CPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following ORDER
a- IN THE TIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No. 18468 OF 2026 t7.06.2026 Between: M/s Best Mega International, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Ankit Khetterpal ...Petitioner AND Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govemment of India, New Delhi and 3 others . . . Respondents Heard Mr. K.Rama Sreenivas, leamed counsel representing Mr. Akkapeddi Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dundu Sashank, leamed counsel representing Mr. Dominic Femandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CBIC for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record'
The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the seizure memo dated 08.06.2026 issued by the 4'h respondent
- 2 with the further request to forthwith release the imported consignment of the multifunctional devices ( 103 units) under Bill of Entry No.9488 462 dated 25.05.2026
Similar writ petitions of identical nature have already been considered by this Bench wherein by way of a contlitional interim order this Bench had permitted the release of seizec goods subject to the petitioner/importer fu1fi1ling certain conditions
One such writ petition is W.P.No.12489 of 2')25; where the goods imported were seized by the Customs authorities and by virtue of the interim order of this High Court, the Customs authoritres were ordered to release on the following ;onditions. For convenience, we reproduce paragraph Nos.26 & 27 of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition hereinunder:
Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered .hat let the respondent authorities pass an order on the applicatDn filed by the petitioners for provisional release of the goods subject to the conditions that: a) The petitioner shall pay/deposit the enharced duty amount. On receipt of such enhanced duty amount traid by the petitioners, the goods in question shall be releasel within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter.
-- 3 b) For payment of such duty, quantification shall be made by the Customs forthwith withln one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such quantification, the payment shall be immediately made by the petitioners and on receipt of the payment in entirety, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of four (04) weeks- c) lt is made clear that this order will not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead with the fu(her proceedings including the adjudication in the manner known to law. d) lt is further made clear that so far as the condition of the petitioner that demmurage charges till date, for the goods be considered for waiver, in this regard, if any application is filed by the petitioners seeking such a waiver of demmurage charges, the same shatl be considered and decided by the respondents objectively. 27. ln addition, the petitioners are also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods imported by them. Further, it is also ordered that in the event if the petitioners upon release of the goods provisionally make and sell the supply to their customers, details of the customers that of relevant price and details of the respective transactions shall be maintained and made available to the respondent authorities from time to time.
Pursuant to the said interim direction and upon the petitioner therein fulfrlling the conditions stipulated by the High Court, the seized goods were released to the petitioner. The said order of releasing of the goods was subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; where the Hon'ble Supreme Court ln
- 4 SLP.No.42808124, datedl5.0l.2025, has refused tc interfere with the order passed by this Bench.
However, as regards the proceedings before the adjudicating authority is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the adjudicating authority to proceed and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner is aiso held entitled for participation in the adjudicating proceedings.
Pursuant to the disposal of the SLP, this Court has disposed of all such writ petitions whereby the goods were r,)leased and the proceedings were pending before the adjudicating authority
Simiiar nature of facts are also there in the instant case also where the stage at this juncture is only the seizure mr:mo and prayer is also only for an interim release of the seized goods.
In the factual matrix narrated in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the instant wnt petition also therefore can be disposed ofat the admission stage itself. Reserving the right of the adjudicating authority to take appropriate decision
5 in the proceedings after permitting the petitioner to represent before the adjudicating authority:
Thus, for ali the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that let the respondent authorities pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner for provisional release of the goods subject to the conditions that: a) The petitioner shall payideposit the enhanced duty amount. On receipt ofsuch enhanced duty amount paid by the petitioners, the goods in question shall be released within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. b) For payment of such duty, quantification shall be made by the Customs forthwith within one (01) week fiom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such quantification, the payment shall be immediately made by the petitioner and on receipt of the pay.rnent in entirety, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of four (04) weeks. c) It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way for Customs Department to go ahead with the further proceedings including the adjudication in the manner known to law.
- 6 d) It is further made clear that so far as the condition of the petitioner that demurrage charges till date, for the goods be considered for waive:r, in this regard, if any application is filed by the petitioner seeking such a waiver of demurrage charges, the same shall be considered and decided by the re;pondents objectively.
In addition, the petitioner is also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the igoods imported by them. Further, it is aiso ordered that in the event if the petitioner upon release of the goods provisionally makes and srdl the supply to their customers, details of the customers that of rel,:vant price and details of the respective transactions shall be maintained and made available to the respondent authorities from time to time.
Needless to mention that the adjudicating authority in the process of deciding the same would not be in any manner influenced by the order of conditional release ordere,l by this Court. The authority shall decide the same considering the objections and contentions that would be raised on either side.
tstFc!7 7
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shail be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. A.H.S. GOWRI SHAN AS ISTANT RE //// ECTION OFFICER
The Secretary, Union of lndia, Department of Revenue' I\'4inistry of Finance, Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.
The Joint commissionei of customs (lmports), GST Bhavan, Basheebagh, Hyderabad - 500004. g. ihe Oeputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD' Timmapur - 509325' Telangana' ;. ih; s;;;;intendent of customs (lcD- Timmapur)' Hvderabad customs Commissionerate, Hyderabad, Telangana s. on" CC to sRl AKKAPEDDI SRlNlvAS, Advocate [oPUC] ; o;; -cc to snt r.r.eHuJAt'lcn RAo, Deputy solicitor General of lndia Advocate [OPUC] z. o"" cC t,isRl DbMlNlc FERNANDES' sc FoR cBlc' (oPUC) B. Two CD CoPies R,- To M. SA GJP
HIGH COURT DATED: 1710612026 ORDER WP.No.18468 of 2026 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 61 ,r3-, io t-_: _ .( ii E -.,.io Z3 J]I n,- qi ':.'. D;;-_11 (f,' U _t> ,./t 2[6 a:i a, i .+./ <.,], // 7 I * '.:' f. :.:2' 1 1 ? )/2
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.