Customs administrative instructions on inspection and valuation were upheld as internal guidance, with no writ interference warranted.

Internal customs instructions guiding engagement of Chartered Engineers, inspection of imported second-hand machinery, and precautionary checks for possible e-waste were treated as administrative guidance, not enforceable statutory orders. The importers lacked standing to challenge the standing order and note instructions under writ jurisdiction because no final assessment or legally injured right was shown, and such internal directions are not ordinarily amenable to Article 226 review absent mala fides or other exceptional grounds. The court also accepted that the inspection and valuation procedures served a legitimate environmental and verification purpose and did not amount to an impermissible addition to the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned standing order and note instructions issued by the customs authority were without jurisdiction and amenable to challenge by the importers; (ii) Whether the instructions regulating engagement of Chartered Engineers, examination of imported second-hand machines, and precautions based on environmental concerns called for interference under writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned standing order and note instructions issued by the customs authority were without jurisdiction and amenable to challenge by the importers.

Analysis: The impugned directions were treated as inter-office administrative instructions issued for guiding subordinate officers in day-to-day customs administration. They were not shown to be issued under Section 151-A of the Customs Act, 1962, nor were they addressed to the petitioners as enforceable statutory orders. In the absence of a legally injured right arising from a final assessment or adjudicatory order, the importers lacked the necessary standing to challenge such internal guidance in writ proceedings. The Court also held that administrative instructions of this nature are not ordinarily open to scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless exceptional grounds such as mala fides are made out.

Conclusion: The challenge to the standing order and note instructions was not maintainable and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the instructions regulating engagement of Chartered Engineers, examination of imported second-hand machines, and precautions based on environmental concerns called for interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court found that the impugned directions merely prescribed a scientific and documented procedure for valuation, inspection, and verification of the condition of imported second-hand multifunction machines. The materials placed before the Court showed a genuine environmental concern, including the possibility of e-waste, and the precautionary approach was consistent with the duty of authorities to prevent environmental degradation. The Court held that the cited precedents did not bar such procedural safeguards, since the impugned directions did not add a new condition to a statutory notification or usurp the function of adjudication. On the contrary, the instructions were meant to assist proper examination and avoid arbitrary clearance of goods that might fall within hazardous waste norms.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the instructions regulating inspection and valuation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the impugned customs directions were only internal administrative guidance and, in the facts presented, were justified by the need for careful valuation and environmental safeguards.

Ratio Decidendi: Internal administrative instructions guiding customs officers in the exercise of inspection and valuation functions are not ordinarily amenable to challenge by importers under Article 226 unless they create a legally enforceable injury or are shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, or contrary to a statutory mandate.

---