2021 (2) TMI 826 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of seized goods - imported old and used digital multifunction print, copying and scanning machines of A3 size - Section 110 A of Customs Act. Interim release of goods - HELD THAT - The Bench has stated that in such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to take a different view only in the case of some assesses while others have obtained the benefit of release. The present petitioners are also equally entitled to the benefit of release of goods, as sought. Whether the condition imposed by MeitY is mandatory and whether non-compliance of the same would lead to confiscation? - HELD THAT - The question as to whether the condition imposed by MeitY is mandatory and whether non-compliance of the same would lead to confiscation, has been decided by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in RR Marketing V. The Union of India and others 2020 (1) TMI 1404 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT in favour of the petitioner. Though the SLP filed by the revenue has been admitted by the Supreme Court, provisional release has been permitted in this very case by order dated 18.09.2020 - Thus the Apex Court is clearly of the view that the goods in question are liable to be released in spite of the issue pending consideration on merits. The Hon ble Supreme Court has consistently taken a view in favour of provisional release in such cases, noticing that in identical cases, release has been ordered and there would be no justification to take a contra view in a few cases alone - The issue on merits has been held in favour of the assesse by a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in the case of RR Marketing 2020 (1) TMI 1404 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT and there is no stay of this order by the Supreme Court. Rather provisional release has been ordered in this case as well. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Release of consignments of old and used digital multifunction print, copying, and scanning machines imported by petitioners.
- Whether the imports were restricted or prohibited.
- Provisional release of goods under Section 110 A of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Conflicting decisions on release of goods by different Division Benches.
- Compliance with conditions imposed by the Ministry of Electronics Information and Technology (MeitY).
- Orders of confiscation passed by assessing officers and subsequent interventions by appellate authorities.

Analysis:

1. Release of Consignments:
The batch of nine Writ Petitions sought a mandamus directing Customs Authorities to release consignments of digital multifunction devices imported by petitioners upon payment of applicable customs duty. The history of the cases, dating back to 2019, was considered relevant in deciding the relief sought.

2. Restricted or Prohibited Imports:
The distinction between restricted and prohibited imports was crucial in determining whether the release of goods was automatic or at the discretion of the Officer, as per Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argued for restricted imports, while revenue contended they were prohibited, subject to compliance with conditions.

3. Provisional Release under Section 110 A:
Various orders were passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding provisional release of goods under Section 110 A of the Act. Different Division Benches provided directions on release either as interim relief or by way of mandamus, leading to conflicting decisions and subsequent appeals.

4. Compliance with MeitY Conditions:
The Ministry of Electronics Information and Technology imposed conditions on the import of multifunction devices, requiring approval for such imports. The question of whether non-compliance would lead to confiscation was addressed, with a related judgment from the High Court of Telangana favoring the petitioner.

5. Interventions by Appellate Authorities:
Appellate authorities in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu intervened in cases where orders of confiscation were passed by assessing officers. Orders were reversed, and appeals were allowed in favor of the assesses, indicating a trend of decisions supporting release of goods.

6. Final Decision and Orders:
The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions, directing the release of consignments upon payment of enhanced duty as quantified by a certified Engineer. Adjudication proceedings were to be initiated or concluded promptly, following the consistent trend of provisional release in similar cases.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with regulatory conditions, the distinction between restricted and prohibited imports, and the consistent trend of provisional release and favorable decisions by appellate authorities and the Supreme Court in similar cases.