Import release for used MFD machines depends on clear notification coverage and proper consideration of required documents.

Customs detention of imported used multifunction printers and photocopiers could not be sustained where the later consignments were inconsistent with the earlier adjudication and the governing policy materials did not clearly support continued withholding; release had to be considered after the importer furnished the required documents under the applicable regime. Compulsory registration under the Electronics and IT Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 could not be imposed unless a specific notification covered the goods, and no such notification was shown for these MFD machines. The petition was allowed to that extent, with direction to consider release of the consignments in accordance with law and the earlier adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention and non-release of the imported used multifunction print and copying machines could be sustained on the basis of the Foreign Trade Policy, the Customs notifications and the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. (ii) Whether the Customs authorities could insist upon compulsory registration under the Electronics and IT Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 in the absence of a specific notification covering the imported goods.

Issue (i): Whether the detention and non-release of the imported used multifunction print and copying machines could be sustained on the basis of the Foreign Trade Policy, the Customs notifications and the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.

Analysis: The import of used MFDs was examined in the context of Rule 13(4), Schedule III and Schedule VIII of the 2016 Rules, the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, and Notification No. 36/2015-2020 dated 17.01.2017. The prior order of confiscation in respect of the first consignment had attained finality after redemption on payment of fine and penalty. In that background, the later consignments could not be denied treatment in a manner inconsistent with the earlier adjudication. The record also did not satisfactorily explain the inconsistency between the policy materials relied upon by Customs and the later notification showing the relevant goods as freely importable.

Conclusion: The Customs authorities could not continue to withhold the consignments on the stated basis without first considering the documents to be furnished and the governing statutory regime.

Issue (ii): Whether the Customs authorities could insist upon compulsory registration under the Electronics and IT Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 in the absence of a specific notification covering the imported goods.

Analysis: The communication dated 06.12.2016 indicated that repaired, refurbished or second hand items would require registration only if the goods were notified. No notification was produced showing that MFD printers and photocopiers were specifically covered so as to make registration a condition precedent for import. In the absence of such a notification, the directive could not be mechanically applied to the petitioner's consignments.

Conclusion: The compulsory registration requirement was not established as applicable to the imported goods.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed to the extent that the petitioner was permitted to furnish the required documents, whereupon the Customs authorities were directed to consider release of the consignments in accordance with law and in the light of the earlier adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Customs cannot deny release of imported goods by invoking a compulsory registration regime or a restrictive import position unless the applicable statutory notification or policy provision clearly covers the goods and the documents required by the governing rules have been considered.

---