Provisional release and compulsory registration for imported multifunction devices: earlier interlocutory orders cannot compel release against the regulatory framework.

Interlocutory orders granting provisional release of imported multifunction print and copying machines are context-specific and do not operate as binding precedent for later cases. The court also read the compulsory registration regime, BIS materials, circulars and the 01.04.2020 notification as confirming that such multifunction devices fall within the regulated category requiring compliance before release. On that footing, provisional release could not be directed on the basis of the earlier restricted-regime orders, and the departmental insistence on compliance was upheld. The authorities were left to consider pending provisional-release applications on their merits and in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether earlier orders directing provisional release of imported multifunction print and copying machines could be treated as precedent for granting the same relief in the present batch of cases; (ii) Whether, in view of the compulsory registration regime and the post-01.04.2020 notification, the imported machines were liable to be treated as prohibited goods and therefore not fit for provisional release.

Issue (i): Whether earlier orders directing provisional release of imported multifunction print and copying machines could be treated as precedent for granting the same relief in the present batch of cases.

Analysis: Orders granting provisional release are interlocutory in nature and do not finally adjudicate the parties' rights or liabilities. A direction for provisional release is discretionary and context-specific, and cannot be elevated into a binding precedent compelling identical relief in every later case. The Court also noted that the earlier directions had been passed in a different regulatory setting when the goods were treated as restricted rather than prohibited.

Conclusion: The earlier provisional release orders could not be relied upon as a precedent to insist on release in the present cases.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the compulsory registration regime and the post-01.04.2020 notification, the imported machines were liable to be treated as prohibited goods and therefore not fit for provisional release.

Analysis: The Court read the compulsory registration order, the BIS rule-making power, the office memorandum, the circulars, and the notification dated 01.04.2020 as showing a consistent regulatory position that multifunction devices are covered within the category of printers/plotters and require compliance with the compulsory registration regime. The later clarification was treated as explanatory of the existing position rather than as a fresh inclusion. In that legal setting, the Court held that the change after 01.04.2020 was material, that the writ court should not have directed provisional release on the assumption that the matter was still governed by the earlier restricted regime, and that the Customs Department was justified in insisting on compliance before release.

Conclusion: The imported machines were not entitled to provisional release on the basis claimed by the writ petitioners, and the departmental stand was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeals succeeded, the directions for provisional release were set aside, and the Customs authorities were required only to consider the pending applications for provisional release on merits and in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional release orders are interlocutory and non-precedential, and where the governing import-control regime has been clarified to treat the goods as covered by compulsory registration requirements, the court will not direct release contrary to that regulatory framework.

---