TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scanning machines of A3 size imported by the petitioners on payment of applicable customs duty on the value as enhanced and fixed by the Chartered Engineers. These matters have a checkered history that would be relevant to decide the relief sought. 2. I chronicle below the relevant events: i) Courts have been seized of several writ petitions from 2019 onwards filed by importers of Multi-Function Devices (MFD/goods) seeking release of the goods either as interim relief in a writ of declaration challenging the Foreign Trade Policy or a mandamus seeking the release as a final prayer. ii) Originally, import of fax machines and MFD was freely permitted. iii) The Ministry of Electronics Information and Technology (MeitY) passed an or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of interim relief in a Writ of Declaration by a Division Bench comprising Mr.Justice S.Manikumar (as he then was) and Mr.Justice Subramoniam Prasad. 4. On 22.02.2019, I decided a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.26049 of 2019 etc. batch, where release was sought by way of mandamus. Referring to the order made in W.P.Nos.15621 to 15623 of 2018, I had directed release of the consignment upon the petitioner furnishing a bond of 90% of the enhanced valuation of the goods and security for the remaining 10% within one week from date of furnishing of the security. 5. In Writ Appeal filed by the Revenue (W.A.No.1215 of 2019 etc. batch), a Division Bench comprising Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam and Mrs.Justice V.Bhavani Subbaroyan directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders dated 10.09.2019 passed by the Division Bench to the Hon ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. By orders dated 14.02.2020, 17.02.2020 and 29.05.2020, the interim release ordered was confirmed as was the view of the Division Bench in order dated 10.09.2019. 10. I am unaware as to whether the views of the Division Benches dated 25.04.2019 and 27.09.2019 were placed before the Supreme Court and none of the parties are able to confirm this position. 11. The order of interim release passed by the three Judge Bench as recently as on 18.09.2020 states as follows: Considering that the petitioners in the other special leave petitions have had their goods released pursuant to orders of this Court, we allow these appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation and allowed the assessees appeals. Two orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore and Chennai dated 18.09.2019 and 21.09.2020 in the cases of S.R.Enterprises and SRK Overseas respectively are placed on record. The Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has confirmed this position in Karnataka as well and the order of the CESTAT dated 20.12.2019 is stated to have become final with no further appeal having been filed before the High Court. 16. I summarise the discussion below: i) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
