9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1133 - HC - CustomsDirection to release the consignments in question upon remittance of enhanced duty as quantified - Multifunction Devices MFDs - prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GR. 5) , THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GR. 5) , THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GR. 5) , VERSUS M/S. BEST MEGA INTERNATIONAL, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2021 (3) TMI 696 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where on similar issue, appellant, Customs Department is directed to consider the applications filed by the respondent/writ petitioners for provisional release and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Following the decision, writ appeals are allowed on the same lines - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release orders and their precedential value. 2. Classification of Multifunction Devices (MFDs) under the Customs Act. 3. Compliance with the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012. 4. Jurisdiction and scope of judicial review in customs matters. 5. Procedural aspects regarding applications for provisional release. Detailed Analysis: 1. Provisional Release Orders and Their Precedential Value: The court examined whether orders of provisional release can be cited as precedents. It referenced the case of Union of India vs. Manju Goel, stating that provisional release orders are interlocutory and do not adjudicate any liability. The court emphasized that such orders should not be considered precedents as they are discretionary and context-specific. 2. Classification of Multifunction Devices (MFDs) Under the Customs Act: The court discussed whether MFDs can be classified under the category of printers and plotters as per the Customs Act. The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology had issued notifications and circulars clarifying that MFDs fall under this category. The court rejected the respondent's argument that MFDs cannot be included under printers by a circular, stating that the classification was consistent and clarified by the Ministry due to unethical imports. 3. Compliance with the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012: The court examined whether the imported goods conformed to the specified standards under the Registration Order, 2012. It noted that the Ministry's notifications and circulars required MFDs to conform to Indian safety standards and be registered with BIS before sale in India. The court held that the goods in question were prohibited items post the notification dated 01.04.2020, and non-compliance with the CRO could lead to serious consequences. 4. Jurisdiction and Scope of Judicial Review in Customs Matters: The court highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in customs matters, stating that classification issues and decisions on provisional release should be left to the Customs Department. It referenced the High Court of Kerala's decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Shri Amman Dhall Mill, emphasizing that the primary authority's discretion under Section 125 of the Customs Act is governed by applicable policies and notifications. 5. Procedural Aspects Regarding Applications for Provisional Release: The court observed that the respondents had not given the Customs Department reasonable time to examine their applications for provisional release before filing writ petitions. It emphasized that the Department should be allowed to take a decision on such applications without judicial interference. The court directed the Customs Department to consider the applications for provisional release on merits and in accordance with the law within four weeks. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ appeals, setting aside the orders passed in the writ petitions. It directed the Customs Department to consider the applications for provisional release and pass orders within four weeks. The court reiterated that provisional release orders are interlocutory and cannot be considered precedents, and that classification and compliance issues should be decided by the Customs Department.
|
