Court rules on writ petitions, grants provisional release of goods challenged under Foreign Trade Policy.

M/s. J.J. Graphics, M/s. Gee Kay Computers Versus The Commissioner of Customs Chennai II Commissionerate, The Joint/Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 5), The Asst/Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 5)

M/s. J.J. Graphics, M/s. Gee Kay Computers Versus The Commissioner of Customs Chennai II Commissionerate, The Joint/Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 5), ... Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of an interim order of the Division Bench regarding provisional release of goods.
2. Challenge to Para 2.31 of the Foreign Trade Policy (2015-2020) requiring authorization for Import Clearance of Secondhand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines.

Analysis:
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the issue at hand aligns with the interim order of the Division Bench in a previous case. The Division Bench had issued a common interim order for cases with similar circumstances, emphasizing the provisional release of goods without delving into the aspect of suppression or the maintainability of the writ petitions. The order directed the petitioners to pay the duty applicable on the enhanced value as determined by the Chartered Engineer for the release of goods from Custom Fleet Stations. The interim relief included waiving demurrage charges until the release of goods. The respondents did not dispute this fact, leading to the disposal of the current writ petitions based on the same principles.

2. The writ petitions challenged Para 2.31 of the Foreign Trade Policy (2015-2020) requiring authorization for Import Clearance of Secondhand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines as ultravires, unconstitutional, and lacking jurisdiction. Despite the pending nature of these petitions, the court granted provisional release of the detained goods as an interim measure. The petitioners were directed to pay the disputed amount in cash to the competent authority and the duty applicable on the enhanced value determined by the Chartered Engineer for the release of goods within seven days. The court also waived demurrage charges until the release date. The disposal of these writ petitions was based on the relief granted by the Division Bench in similar cases, focusing on the provisional release of goods under specific conditions.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the interpretation and application of an interim order by the Division Bench for the provisional release of goods in cases challenging the Foreign Trade Policy's requirements. The court's decision ensured compliance with the conditions set in the previous order while providing relief to the petitioners regarding the detained goods.