l\4/s.Gaurik Enterprises v. Union of lndia

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to invoke the jurisdiction vested by Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or Order or direction setting aside the Seizure Memo dated 06-11-2025 issued by the 04th Respondent as being without jurisdiction and contrary to Foreign Trade Policy 2023 and consequently direct the 04th Respondent to forthwith release the Petitioner's imported consignment of Multi-Functional Devices ([/FD) of '1'14 units under Bill of Entry dated 29-10-2025, bearing No. 5376486. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ct r the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nEi the 04th Respondent to forthwith provisionally release the 1t l\,4 u lti-Fu n ction Devises (lt/FDs) which have been seized unr r dated 06-11-2025, pending disposal of the present V/ i Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and severe hardshrp umstances stated in be pleased to direct ods i.e 114 Units of r the Seizure Memo Petition, else the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AKKAPEDDI SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MS. T. SUHASINI, REPF I SENTING SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR }ENERAL OF INDIA Counse.l for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: MS. RUCHITHA K, I IEPRESENTING SRI DOMINIC FERNA\ ]ES, SC FOR CBIC The Court made the following: ORDER rqq#try!?r --r.-.-- ,/ THB HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ANI) THE HONOURAtsLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No.3482l OF- 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justicc I'Sunt Koshy) Heard Mr. Akkapeddi Srinivas, learncd counsel lor the petitioner, Ms. T.Suhasini, [earnecl coLlnsel representing Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India tbr lespondent No.l and Ms. Ruchitha K. learned counsel represenling Mr.Dominic Femandes, Iearned Senior Standing Counscl tbr the CBTC, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Pelused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has becn lLled assailing tl're seizure rrelno dated 06.11.2025, issued by the 4'r' respondent u,ith the furlher request to forlhwith release the imported consignrnent of the multifunctional devices (114 units) undcr BilI of Entry No.5376486 dated 29.10.2025.

3. Similar writ petitions of identical nature have already been considered by this Bench wherein by way of a conditional interim order this Bench had permitted the release ol seized goods subject to the petitioner/importer fu lfi I ling cerlain conditior-rs 2

4. One such writ pctition is W.P.No.l2489 of . ()25; rvherc the goods imported were seized b_v the Customs :n 1 r,triries aLtd br viftue ol the interim order ol this High Cor,r. the C_-ustorns autholities u,ere ordered to release on the follouint conditions. For coltven rence, \\/e reproduce paragraph Nos.26 & 'r of the order passed in the aloresaid writ petition hereinunder 26 Thus. for all the aforesaid reasons, it is ordereI flrat let the respondent authorities pass an order on the applicr r:n filed by the petrtioners for provisional release of the goods : ( bjeci to the conditio ns that: a) The petitioner shall pay/deposit the enlrr nced duty amount. On receipt of such enhanced duty amoun )aid by the petilioners, the goods in question shall be relea ir c within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. b) For payment of such duty, quantification shall I e made by the Customs forthwrth within one (01) week frorn re date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such cu lntificatron, the payment shall be immediately made by the peti ioners and on receipt of the payment in entirety, the goods shal e released as indicated above at the outer limit of four (04) wee ( . c) lt rs made clear that this order will not stand irr he way for Customs Depa(ment to go ahead with the further F'oceedings including the adjudication in the manner known to la,v d) It is further made clear that so far as the cor c ,tion of the petitioner that demmurage charges till date, for -e goods be considered for waiver, in this regard, if any applicati > is filed by the petitioners seeking such a waiver of demmurzc: charges, 3 the same sha'll 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 provrsionally 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.

5. Pursuant to the said interim direction and upon the petitioner therein fulfilling the conditions stipulated by the I.ligh Court, thc seized goods were released to the petitioner. The said order ol releasing of the goods was subjected to challenge belore the Hon'ble Supreme Court; where the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.42808/24, datedl5.0l .2025, has retused to inrerfere r.virh the order passed by this Bench 6 However, as regards the proceedings belore the adjudicating authority is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the adjudicating authority to proceed and decide the same strictiy in accordance with law. The petitioner is also held entitled tbr participation in the adjudicating proceedings. , I 4

7. PuLsuant to the disposal ol the SLP, this Cor 11 6u. disposed of all such rvrit petitions wherebl, the goods were :leased and the proceedirrgs u,crc pending before the adjudicating rrr thority

8. Similar r.iatr:re ol facts are also there in the rrstant case also rvhere the stage at thisjuncture is only the seizure r emo and prayer is also only lbl an interirn release of the seized gooJ i

9. In thc tactLral nratlix narrated in the precedir5 paragraphs. u'e are ol the consiclcrcd opinion that the instant \/ it petition also thelelole can be disposed ofat the adrnission stage ,self. Reserving thc right of the adjudicating authority to take appr 4rr:iate decision in the proceedings after perrnitting the pctitioner tc epresent before the adjudicating authority:

10. l-l.rus. lol all thc aforesaid reasons, it is or,l red that lct the respondent authorities pass all order on the applici ion liled by the petitioners fbl provisional release of the good; subject to the conditions that: a) The petitioner shall payldeposit th,r enhanced duty amount. On receipt of such enhanced dl .v amount paid by the petitioners, thc goods in questic r shall be released within a period of four (04) weeks tlr reafter. .', ]: 5 b) For payment ofsuch duty, quantification shall bc made by the Customs forlhwith within one (01) r.veek from the datc of receipt of a copy of this or.der. On receipt of such quantification, the payment shall be immediately made by the petitioners and or.r receipt of the payment 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 wilI not stand in the way for Customs Depaftment to go ahead with the lurther proceedings including the adjudication in the manner known to law. d) It is furlher made clear that so far as the condition of the petitioner that demurrage 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 demurage chargcs, the sarne shall be considered and decided by the respondents objectively. l I l. In addition, the petitioners are also directed to provide a bank guarantee worth 10 percent of the total price of the goods importcd by them. Further, it is also ordered that in the event if the ( petitioners upon release of the goods provisionatty makes and sell the supply to their customers, details of the customers that of relevant price and details of the respective transactions shall be 6 maintained alld nlade available to the respondent I uthorities from tlme to trne

12. Necdless to rreLrtion that the adjudicating i uthority in the process of deciding the same would not be ir any manner influenced b1,' the order ol conditional release order: I by this Cour1. The authoritl,shall decide the same considering the objections and contentions that q,ould be raised on either side. 1 3 . Accordingll,. this rvrit petition is allowed. 'f I :r'e shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneorrs applications pending, if ,r r ., shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// To, I TJ LS

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Department of Revenue Govt. of lndia, New Delhi

2. Joint Commissioner of Customs, (lmports) GST Bhavar, Hyderabad - 500004

3. Di:puty Commissioner of Customs lCD, Timmapur - 50(ti 4. Suferintendent of Customs, (lCD-TimmapuQ HyderabaJ Commissionerate, Hyderabad, Telangana

5. One CC to Sri Akkapeddi Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor Gene r 7. One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandes, SC for CBIC[OPUC 8. Two CD Copies 1*- SD/.]. SRINIVASA REDDY ASS I ;TANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER /inistry of Finance, I I 3asheebagh, 25, Telangana Customs rl of lndia [OPUC] HIGH COURT ) DATED:1711112025 ORDER WP.No.34821 of 2025 },t til ' l5 fitr zffi 1 ...', .,1'+' j.) :. ,,, \:r \...,, ? l;n.a - ,-2;-i ' ---:' '' : - ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,t" I,t\E'(