Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the two writ petitions are that the petitioners in both these writ petitions are traders in the business of importing and sale of printing, photocopying and scanning machines. As a part of the business, the petitioners also ::4::

import and sale multi-functional devices used for printing, photocopying and scanning etc. In the course of trading, the petitioners purchased few MFDs from their supplier situated in foreign countries of UAE and Singapore respectively and proceeded to import them. When the product reached its intended place of final delivery, the petitioners filed a bill of entry before the respondent authorities. However, the respondent authorities did not allow clearance of the above referred consignment imported by the petitioners.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.2014 of 2024 referred to a couple of decisions. One rendered by the Division Bench of this High Court in W.P.No.7665 of 2019, so also the two recent decisions rendered by the Madras High Court in two bunch petitions, the first one being decided on 23.11.2023 and the subsequent batch of petitions decided on 18.12.2023 highlighting the fact that this High Court as also the Madras High Court in those bunch petitions have accepted the contention of the petitioner so far as the multi-functional devices imported by the petitioner to be one which stands exempted so far as the applicability of the aforementioned compulsory registration Order, 2012 and that of Order, 2021 and had directed the respondents to pass orders for release of the goods provisionally.

10. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC contended that there are various aspects which have to be checked, verified, scrutinized and enquired into before passing of a final order of confiscation. It was further contended that the authorities are required to check whether the product imported is one which would otherwise fall within the category of an e-waste or not, whether the product is one which meets all the criteria in which it may fall within the ambit of a multi-functional device or for that matter a highly specialized equipment.

21. Keeping in view the aforesaid foreign trade policy of the Government, the Order of 2012 which stood replaced by the Order of 2021 and subsequent amendments brought to Order 2021 by inserting clauses 6, 7 and 8, what is apparently evident is that in Order, 2012 the product multi-functional device was not a notified ::13::

item. What was notified so far the writ petitions are concerned was only printers and plotters and the Order, 2012 was also preceded by a decision of the Government exempting highly specialized equipment from the coverage of Order, 2012. The Order, 2012 stood preceded by subsequent Order, 2021 which was issued and brought into force w.e.f 18.03.2021 and the schedule attached to Order, 2021 stood modified to the extent that in addition to printers and plotters the Government also notified multi-functional devices as an item so far as the foreign trade policy is concerned. This change in Order, 2021 so far as adding multi-functional devices in the schedule makes it amply clear that prior to Order, 2021 MFDs were not a notified item and since 18.03.2021 when the Order, 2021 was notified, MFDs became restricted goods under the foreign trade policy.