2024 (9) TMI 630 - HC - Customs

Entitlement to release of the various models of Secondhand Highly Specialized Equipment - Digital Multifunction Print, Copying Scanning Machines, imported by the petitioners prior to the N/N.13/2024-25, dated 20.05.2024 - HELD THAT - In the present cases, the bills of lading would be dated much before the date of impugned Notification dated 20.05.2024. Specifically, in both writ petitions, the Bill of Lading is dated 11.04.2024. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the said Notification will not be applicable to the petitioners, who had already initiated the process of import and the bills of lading were raised. There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the plea of the petitioners to release the goods by way of provisional release on condition that, the petitioners shall pay/deposit the enhanced duty amount. On receipt of such enhanced duty amount paid by the petitioners, the goods in question shall be released within a period of three weeks thereafter - For payment of such duty, quantification shall be made by the Customs forthwith within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such quantifications, the payment shall be immediately made by the petitioners and on receipt of the payment in entirety, the goods shall be released as indicated above at the outer limit of three weeks.

Summary

Issues:
Release of Secondhand Highly Specialized Equipment imported before a specific notification.

Analysis:
The Writ Petitions were filed to direct the release of Secondhand Highly Specialized Equipment imported by the petitioners. The issue at hand was whether the petitioners were entitled to the release of the equipment imported before a specific notification was issued prohibiting such imports. The petitioners argued that the date of reckoning of import should be the date of shipment or dispatch of goods, not the date of arrival at an Indian Port, citing relevant clauses from the Handbook of Procedures issued by the DGFT.

The petitioners contended that the bills of lading for the imported equipment were dated before the issuance of the impugned notification, specifically dated 11.04.2024 in both writ petitions. Therefore, they argued that the notification should not be applicable to them as they had initiated the import process before the notification was issued. The Junior Panel Counsel agreed that the bill of lading should be considered the date of shipment and acknowledged that the bills of lading in the present cases were dated before the notification.

In light of the arguments presented, the Court referred to a previous order in a similar case and directed the respondents to consider releasing the goods provisionally upon payment of enhanced duty by the petitioners. The Court ordered the Customs to quantify the duty amount within one week of the order and for the petitioners to make the payment promptly. Upon receipt of the full payment, the goods were to be released within three weeks. The Court also clarified that this order did not prevent the Customs Department from proceeding with further adjudication. Additionally, the Court mentioned a previous interim order regarding waiver of demurrage charges, stating that any application for such waiver should be objectively considered by the respondents.

Consequently, the Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with the above directions, without any order as to costs, and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.