Telangana HC Allows Conditional Provisional Release of Seized Multi-Functional Devices, Orders Adjudication to Proceed Independently [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court held that imported Multi-Functional Devices seized by customs authorities could be released on a conditional and provisional basis, while making it clear that the customs department was free to continue adjudication proceedings independently and strictly in accordance with law.

Marjaan Traders, the petitioner, represented by its proprietor Mr. Mohd. Nizam Uddin, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a seizure memo dated 29 September 2025 issued by the Superintendent of Customs, ICD Timmapur.

The seizure related to a consignment of 107 units of Multi-Functional Devices imported under Bill of Entry dated 22 September 2025. The petitioner also sought immediate release of the seized goods, stating that continued detention was causing serious financial hardship.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the seizure was carried out at a very preliminary stage and was without proper jurisdiction. They submitted that the goods were lawfully imported and that similar seizures of Multi-Functional Devices had already been considered by the same High Court in earlier writ petitions. In those cases, provisional release had been granted subject to conditions, while allowing adjudication to proceed.

On the other hand, the respondents, including the Union of India and customs authorities, argued that the seizure was made in accordance with law and that the department was entitled to investigate and adjudicate suspected violations. At the same time, it was pointed out that in earlier cases, the High Court had ordered conditional release of seized goods, and those orders had not been interfered with by the Supreme Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao observed that several writ petitions involving identical facts and seizure of similar goods had already been dealt with by the Court. The court observed that in one such case, the interim order granting provisional release was challenged before the Supreme Court, which refused to interfere and permitted adjudication to continue in accordance with the law.

The court explained that the present case stood on the same footing, as the dispute was presently limited to the seizure memo and the petitioner was seeking only provisional release of goods. The court pointed out that granting conditional release would not prejudice the customs authorities, provided adequate safeguards were imposed, and the petitioner was allowed to participate in adjudication proceedings.

The court held that the writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage itself. The court directed the customs authorities to allow provisional release of the seized goods subject to payment of the enhanced duty as quantified by customs, furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to 10 percent of the value of the goods, and compliance with other conditions imposed by the Court.

It also clarified that the customs department was free to proceed with adjudication independently and that the adjudicating authority would not be influenced by the order granting provisional release. The writ petition was allowed without costs and all pending applications were closed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates