9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner 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 (3) weeks thereafter - For payment of such duty, quantification shall be made by the Customs forthwith within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such quantification, 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 (3) weeks. Petition disposed off. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy For the Petitioner in all Petitions : Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, for Mr.Anirudh A Sriram For the Respondent in all Petitions : Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, Senior Standing counsel COMMON ORDER The issue involved in these writ petitions are pertaining to the release of various models of second hand Highly Specialised Equipment digital Multifunction Print, Copying Scanning Machines, imported by the petitioner. 2. Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, learned Senior Standing counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and clearance of the above goods. As per the practice prevailing in the Chennai Customs, in respect of import of second hand capital goods, the Officers In-charge, have ordered for 100% examination under first check appraisal. Accordingly, as per the orders of the Officers, examination and inspection of the said machines were carried out by the Directorate General Foreign Trade [for brevity DGFT ] approved Chartered Engineers under the supervision of Customs Officers In-charge. The Chartered Engineers have enhanced the C F value for the consignment as against the actual transaction C F value. Despite the goods having been examined by the DGFT approved Chartered Engineer in the presence of Customs Officers and also having submitted their Inspection Report and Valuation Certificate, the Customs Authorities have not allowed the clearance of the above consignment till date. Since the petitioners have imported a consignment of several units of secondhand highly specialized equipments ? digital multifunction print copying machines in terms of para 8(a) to (d) vide Amendment Order dated 01.07.2021 in S.O.2844(E) issued by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology [MEITY], they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms but only verification process is going on and citing these writ petitions, the Customs Department has been blocked and the petitioners, if face an adverse order, they can resort to filing an appeal u/s. 128 of the Customs Act, thereafter exhaust a further appeal remedy and then only, they have to approach the Writ Court. The petitioners are aware that as per DGFT policy applicable Compulsory Registration of the manufacturer under present CRO guidelines is required to be done with BIS and also the necessary authorisation has to be obtained from DGFT. The valuation of goods on import is only a procedural matter and not one for open permit for import. The valuation exercise is carried out by importer and by customs to show cause the value of goods and its identity and not on classification. The Multi Functional Devices would fall under category of printers and plotters only as clarified by MEITY. Further, the Foreign Manufacturers Certification Scheme has to be complied for import. In view of multiple writ petitions filed against Customs Department as the petitioners are misinterpreting the single aspect of weightage and other requirements required for highly specialized equipme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orms and the imported item is reexported as per the Customs Notification. 10. By referring to Sl.No.I(b), learned Senior Standing Counsel and learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the multi function devices imported by the petitioners would fall under that category. Therefore, before importing goods, they have to get authorization from DGM. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods mentioned in Sl.No.I(b) are required to be compulsorily registered, hence, the petitioners- goods would not fall under the category I(b), but it falls under the category I(d) which indicates that other than goods mentioned in I(a), I(b), I(c), all other second-hand capital goods can be imported freely without any restriction. 11. Now the issue is whether the goods of petitioners can be freely imported. 12. The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce Industry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, comes out with a similar policy in the year 2019 vide Notification No.5/2015-2020, dated 07.05.2019. Paragraph No.2 of the said policy is extracted hereunder: 2. Further, Para 2.31(I)(a) of Foreign T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.2019 and Foreign Trade Policy 2023, does not find any new changes brought in so that prohibited multi function devices should get authorization from DGFT. The petitioners stand on the same footing as that of the petitioners before the Supreme Court in Spl. Leave to Appeal (C) No.7565 of 2021. The order of stay of confiscation of goods passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court is in force till date. 16. Further, learned Single Judge of this Court also granted release of goods in W.P.Nos.1393 of 2022 etc. batch, wherein the learned Single Judge has dealt with all the aspects. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus: 12. Whether a notification has been issued on 18.03.2021 under which, the goods in question, namely Multi-Function Devices are brought under the category of printers with effect from 18.09.2021, based on which, whether the petitioners are not entitled to get it released and also based on 01.04.2020 notification, whether the goods which are in question are prohibited goods or not, all these matters are pending before the law Courts. 13. In this regard, the policy decision taken by the Government i.e., the Revenue has already been put under challenge in a batch of ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing for respondents also brought to the notice of this Court that in the cases dealt with by Hon ble Supreme Court as well as the learned Single Judge, the goods were confiscated, but, in the present case, no confiscation has been made. 20. In the aforestated circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are in a better position than the petitioners before the Supreme Court and the learned Single Judge. In view of the above findings, this Court does not find any impediment for the respondents to release the goods provisionally. 21. The other contention of respondents that the petitioners, without availing the appeal remedy, have straight away approached this Court is concerned, this Court finds that the goods were imported by the petitioners on 19.07.2023 and the department has not passed any order till date, which itself shows that the department is in a confused state of mind and that is the reason why they have not taken any decision till date. It is the duty of the department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time and they cannot unnecessarily detain the goods for a long period of time. In the result, (i)W.P.Nos.28817 and 30506 of 2023 are disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
