Interim protection in customs import dispute granted where solar project faced disruption and revenue risk was secured by bond.

The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case for interim protection in a writ challenge to a customs notification and a communication denying concessional duty for solar project equipment. It noted that the project was already registered under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 and that earlier communications had indicated eligibility under the concessional customs duty framework. The Court held that the balance of convenience favoured the petitioner because refusal of protection could disrupt the import process and the project, while any prejudice to the revenue was financial and could be safeguarded by the bond and bank guarantee already furnished. Interim protection was granted, with no precipitate action to be taken at the import stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection against precipitate action at the import stage pending adjudication of its challenge to the impugned customs notification and the related communication.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged a part of Notification No. 54/2022-Customs dated 19.10.2022 and a communication refusing the benefit of concessional customs duty for import of equipment for a solar power project. The Court noted that the project had already been registered under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 and that earlier communications had indicated eligibility for concessional duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 and Customs Tariff Heading 98.01. The Court found that, at this stage, the petitioner had established a prima facie case. It also held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the petitioner because denial of interim protection could derail the import process and the project, while the prejudice to the respondents was essentially financial and could be secured by the continuity bond and bank guarantee already furnished.

Conclusion: Interim protection was granted and no precipitate action was to be taken against the petitioner at the stage of import, without creating any equity in its favour.

---