Provisional release of seized goods must comply with statutory provisions, overriding any circular prohibiting such release, which is deemed void if it conflicts with the law.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 34812/2025 in W.P.(C) 5543/2025

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8849/2025 W.P.(C) 5543/2025

3. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioner – M/s. Nageswara Trade under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to set aside the seizure memo dated 2nd January, 2025 vide which the goods of the Petitioner imported against bill of entry No. 5518018 dated 10th September, 2024 has been seized.

4. In effect, the challenge in the present petitions is to the seizure of the Petitioner’s multi-functional device/ multi-functional printer and photocopier machine without assigning reasons for the same. In fact, Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the seizure memo itself does not mention as to what is the violation by the Petitioner.

5. The Petitioner prays for release of goods in W.P.(C) 5543/2025 in the following terms:-

“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or directions to the Respondents to set-aside the seizure memo dated 02.01.2025 vide which the goods imported against Bill of Entry No.5518018 dated 10.09.2024, has been seized; and/or
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or directions to the Respondents to release the seized imported goods against Bill of Entry No.5518018 dated 10.09.2024 unconditionally; and/or

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to issue the detention certificate for waiver of the damages and detention charges from the date of detention to till the date of release of the consignment; and
(d) Pass such other order or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

6. One of the contentions of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the seizure memo dated 2^nd January 2025 has been provided to the Petitioner only on 28^th March 2025 despite the seizure having been carried out in September 2024 and the same is not a valid seizure memo.

7. In writ petition i.e. W.P.(C)-5543/2025, an application being CM APPL. 34812/2025 was moved seeking interim relief and provisional release of the goods which were seized vide seizure memo dated 2nd January 2025. The said application was considered on 29th May 2025 and the following order was passed by this Court:-

“2. The present application under Section 151 of CPC has been filed by the Applicant/Petitioner seeking provisional release of the goods that were seized vide seizure memo dated 2nd January, 2025. A similar application, being C.M.No.25193/2025, has already been filed for the same interim relief.

3. Mr. Beriwal, ld. Standing Counsel for Respondent- Customs Department submits that the reason why the goods have not been released has been communicated to the Petitioner on 10^th September, 2024. The same is as under:

The relevant portion of the same is also extracted for ready reference:

“As per FTP 2.31 (I and II), import of all second- hand goods (including refurbished/ re-conditioned spares) other than capital goods are restricted. CRO, 2021 states that electronics and IT goods (new as well as used/ refurbished/ reconditioned) are restricted for import and require BIS. Please concern”

4. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the present prayer can also be sought before the Respondent Authority. In view thereof, the Petitioner is permitted to seek provisional release before the Authority itself. Let the said request be considered and an order be passed by the Customs Departmen