2019 (11) TMI 1589 - HC - Customs

Requirement for compulsory Registration Order(CRO)-2012 - multi-function devices (MFDs) - covered under the term 'printers' or not - HELD THAT - The matter is admitted. Let the goods be released subject to deposit of security (except bank guarantee) as per the revised value given by the Custom Authorities or any penalty etc. which they may have to incur in case petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether multi-function devices (MFDs) fall under the category of 'printers'.
2. Relevance of the Circular No.1 of 2019 dated 2.5.2019 in determining the classification of MFDs.
3. Comparison with the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP No. 2728 of 2018 regarding the applicability of the Requirement for compulsory Registration Order(CRO)-2012.
4. Pending Supreme Court decision in SLP(c) No.17307 of 2019 and its impact on the classification of MFDs under CRO-2012.

The main issue in the writ petitions was the classification of multi-function devices (MFDs) as 'printers', based on a clarification in Circular No.1 of 2019. The dispute arose due to the Circular's assertion that MFDs, which are printers with additional features like photocopy, scan, and fax, are considered 'printers'. The petitioner's senior counsel referenced the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in WP No. 2728 of 2018, where a similar issue was addressed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled against the applicability of the Requirement for compulsory Registration Order(CRO)-2012 to MFDs, emphasizing the absence of a notification requiring registration for such devices. The respondent challenged the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in the Supreme Court through SLP(c) No.17307 of 2019, which was pending as of the judgment date.

The respondent contended that MFDs should be classified as printers due to their fundamental nature as printers with additional features. However, the court refrained from making a definitive decision on this matter until the Supreme Court's ruling in SLP(c) No.17307 of 2019, considering the importance of consistency in legal interpretation. Consequently, the court admitted the case for further proceedings post the Supreme Court's decision, directing the release of the goods subject to the deposit of security as determined by the Custom Authorities.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment deferred a conclusive determination on whether MFDs are encompassed within the definition of 'printers' as per the Circular and the implications of the CRO-2012. The decision to await the Supreme Court's ruling in a related case underscored the significance of uniformity in legal interpretation and the potential impact of higher court decisions on similar matters.