Customs authorities criticized for arbitrary withholding of goods; Tribunal mandates provisional release following High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
In a significant decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has mandated the provisional release of 63 seized units of used digital multifunction print and copying machines, imported by M/s. Atul Automation Private Limited and others. The Tribunal's order comes in response to appeals filed against the decisions of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, who withheld the release of these goods citing import restrictions.
The Tribunal, comprising Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial), and Shri K. Anpazhakan, Member (Technical), highlighted inconsistencies in the implementation of import restrictions across various Indian ports. The Tribunal observed that the appellants were unfairly subjected to a 100-unit import cap per model, a restriction not uniformly enforced nationwide.
The appellants' counsel argued that the goods should be provisionally released following precedents set by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, without arbitrary restrictions on quantity. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellants had already executed the necessary Provisional Duty Bond and Bank Guarantee for the entire consignment.
The judgment emphasized the lack of a centralized monitoring mechanism for import restrictions, as advised by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) in 2013. The absence of this mechanism has led to discriminatory practices, with different ports adopting varying policies regarding the import of Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE).
In its order, the Tribunal criticized the arbitrary withholding of goods by the Customs authorities and directed the provisional release of the 63 pieces of HSEs imported by the appellants. This decision is in line with similar orders by the Tribunal in previous cases, reinforcing the need for uniform application of import laws across the country.
The judgment is a reminder of the importance of consistent and non-discriminatory application of legal provisions, as well as the necessity for a centralized process to monitor and enforce import restrictions effectively.
Bottom Line:
Provisional release of restricted imported goods should be carried out following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, without arbitrary restrictions on quantity.
Statutory provision(s): Customs Act, 1962 Section 110(1), Section 111.
