Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Learned counsel further submitted that there has been no orders of customs but only verification process is going on and citing these writ petitions, the Customs Department has been blocked and the petitioners, if face an adverse order, they can resort to filing an appeal u/s.128 of the Customs Act, thereafter exhaust a further appeal remedy and then only, they have to approach the Writ Court. The petitioners are aware that as per DGFT policy applicable Compulsory Registration of the manufacturer under present CRO guidelines is required to be done with BIS and also the necessary authorisation has to be obtained from DGFT. The valuation of goods on import is only a procedural matter and not one for open permit for import. The valuation exercise is carried out by importer and by customs to show cause the value of goods and its identity and not on classification. The Multi Functional Devices would fall under category of printers and plotters only as clarified by MEITY. Further, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35980 & 35987 of 2023 Foreign Manufacturers Certification Scheme has to be complied for import. In view of multiple writ petitions filed against Customs Department as the petitioners are misinterpreting the single aspect of weightage and other requirements required for highly specialized equipments are trying into the classification challenge. Since the importers are not complying with the DGFT guidelines and the Compulsory Registration Orders applicable the said import would be treated as

10. By referring to Sl.No.I(b), learned Senior Standing Counsel and learned Central Government https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35980 & 35987 of 2023 Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the multi function devices imported by the petitioners would fall under that category. Therefore, before importing goods, they have to get authorization from DGM. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods mentioned in Sl.No.I(b) are required to be compulsorily registered, hence, the petitioners- goods would not fall under the category I(b), but it falls under the category I(d) which indicates that other than goods mentioned in I(a), I(b), I(c), all other second~hand capital goods can be imported freely without any restriction.

13. Sl.No.(b), referred to above, states that all electronics and IT goods notified under the Electronics and IT Goods (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012, as amended from time to time are “restricted”. Therefore, they are supposed to get authorization from the DGFT. When the said policy was in force, at that point of time also several imports have been made for importing second hand multi-function devices and similar issue was raised that these are all the multi function devices coming under Sl.No.(b). Therefore, unless otherwise authorization is obtained from the DGFT, the same cannot be imported.

(b), but, in the case of Foreign Trade Policy 2023, there are four clauses under Sl.No.I. This Court is of the considered view that as per Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, the petitioners- goods would not fall under the category I(b), but it falls under the category I(d) which indicates that other than goods mentioned in I(a), I(b), I(c), all other second~hand capital goods can be imported freely without any restriction. Therefore, if the petitioners not fall under clause I(b) automatically they fall under I(d). The Supreme Court has taken note of the said fact and stayed the confiscation of goods in a similar matter. Further, this Court, on a comparison of Notification No.5/2015~2020, dated 07.05.2019 and Foreign Trade Policy 2023, does not find any new changes brought in so that prohibited multi function devices should get authorization from DGFT. The petitioners stand on the same footing as that of the petitioners before the Supreme Court in Spl. Leave to Appeal (C) No.7565 of 2021. The order of stay of confiscation of goods passed by the Hon-ble Supreme Court is in force till date.