Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.Further, it is contended that the requirement of BIS registration for the notified goods is mandated in the Compulsory Registration Order [CRO], 2012 as compulsory one and failure of which requires either re- export of the goods or deformation as scrap in order to avoid eco-damage to the Country as well as to ensure safety of public users. Further, it was contended that the dispute raised by the respondent in the writ petition is relevant to the condition set forth by MeitY on the status of MFDs being certified in CRO, 2012 and MeitY had consistently held that the MFDs are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.A.Nos.642, 687, 688, 690, 691, 694, 696, 697 & 698 of 2021 basically with additional features like scanning, copying, etc. and all the three items, namely, printers, scanners and copying machines are independently notified under CRO, 2012 and that as per established international practice, only generic names are quoted as notified in the CRO, 2012 as it would be impossible to notify all individual items that runs to thousands and the MFDs falling under the generic category or family of notified printers and therefore, BIS registration is mandatory for import. Further objection was with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition contending that the writ petition is premature as the adjudication mechanism is yet to commence and the prayer requires to be rejected. Further, it was stated that the respondent importer did not produced the mandatory documents required to be filed for verification and none of the above statutory provisions have been complied with which has resulted in issuance of show cause notice as statutorily required under the Act. Further with regard to the contention of the appellant attempting to bring the machines under CTH 843 31 00 is in fact disputing the policy matter of MeitY which is the nodal agency and implementing authority for CRO that mandates requirement of BIS registration for the imported/used MFDs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.A.Nos.642, 687, 688, 690, 691, 694, 696, 697 & 698 of 2021

15.Mr.Arvind Dattar, learned senior counsel would submit that there is no necessity for the respondent/writ petitioner to challenge the notification as the product imported by the respondent is entirely different and is not a printer and therefore, MeitY is neither necessary nor a proper party. Furthermore it is submitted that the respondent importer cannot be compelled to approach the Court for each and every import when there are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.A.Nos.642, 687, 688, 690, 691, 694, 696, 697 & 698 of 2021 several orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts directing release of similar machines. Further, it is submitted that there may be change of law in April 2020 but all the imports done by the petitioner was prior to 01.04.2020. Further, the issue relating to non- impleadment/non-joinder was not taken at the earliest point of time. Further, it is submitted that unless the order and direction issued by the learned Writ Court was perverse while exercising appellate jurisdiction, this Court will not interfere with the order. To support such contention, the learned senior counsel referred to the relevant paragraphs in the impugned order. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Writ Court rightly issued directions for provisional release of the goods after taking note of all the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. Referring to the schedule to the notification dated 07.09.2012, it is submitted that MFDs which have been imported by the petitioner is not a printer and therefore, condition in clause 3(1) of the notification will not apply and there can be no prohibition for import of those goods. Further by referring to the Alert issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] dated 11.07.2017, it is submitted that the notification states that MeitY has informed the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.A.Nos.642, 687, 688, 690, 691, 694, 696, 697 & 698 of 2021 Department that second hand items if notified also require registration under the provisions of the order and in the absence of any such notification, there cannot be any prohibition for the import. The learned senior counsel elaborately referred to the various orders passed by the other High Courts where provisional release was granted.

24.By notification S.O.2905(E) dated 07.11.2014, the Government included another fifteen products in addition to the fifteen products which were mentioned in the notification dated 07.09.2012. The MeitY issued office memorandum dated 10.03.2017. The necessity for such office memorandum was on account of investigation into large scale import of used MFD in violation of Environment Protection Act and Rules and Foreign Trade Policy. The memorandum mentions about how traders from various parts of India especially Delhi and Kolkata are regularly importing large quantifies of MFDs through Cochin Port and none of the importers https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.A.Nos.642, 687, 688, 690, 691, 694, 696, 697 & 698 of 2021 produce any documents to Customs Department to prove compliance of the Registration Order, 2012. Further, it was mentioned that printers are covered under Electronics and IT Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 mandating Indian safety standards for the notified goods and must be registered with BIS before sale in India. It is further stated that since second hand Multifunction printers are registered with BIS nor they have sought permission from MeitY for their import, such imports would be in violation of Compulsory Registration Order, 2012.

30.In our considered submission, all the three arguments have to necessarily fail. Firstly, the notification including printers in the schedule requiring certification of authorization has not been questioned. The stand of the Department is that the MFDs are also printers with additional features. The office memorandum which was issued dated 10.03.2017 made this position clear. The argument of the respondent is that the schedule in the control order cannot be modified by way of office memorandum/circular. The MeitY had issued circular dated 02.05.2019. A reading of the said circular shows that it is a clarification issued with regard to MFDs. A clarification is to be understood as a clarification of an existing position and not a new inclusion. This being the settled interpretation, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.A.Nos.642, 687, 688, 690, 691, 694, 696, 697 & 698 of 2021 respondent/writ petitioner cannot contend that MFDs cannot be included under the category of Printers by way of a clarification. The position appears to be that the Department has always classified MFDs under the category of Printers and the position stood clarified thereafter and the need for such clarification arose on account of unethical imports which was taken note of by MeitY while issuing office memorandum dated 10.03.2017. It has clearly stated that the traders of various parts of India, especially Delhi and Kolkata, are regularly importing large quantities of used MFDs through Cochin Port and none of them have produced any documents before the Customs Department to prove compliance of the Registration Order, 2012. Therefore, on account of unscrupulous person resorting to such imports, the necessity arose for the MeitY to issue clarification/circular. Therefore, it has to be necessarily taken that for all purposes, the Department has been consistent in their stand that MFDs are covered within the scope of Printers. This was made doubly clear by issuing of the notification dated 01.04.2020.