Writ relief for imported goods requires denial, and restricted second-hand photocopiers cannot be released without a mandatory licence.

A writ of mandamus for release of imported goods is not maintainable where the importer's request remains pending and has not been rejected, because denial is a necessary basis for such relief. In relation to second-hand photocopier machines, the Exim Policy permitted free import of second-hand capital goods but required a licence for these machines; in the absence of that licence, conditional release could not be insisted upon. The court also stressed that disputes of this kind must be decided by a reasoned speaking order. On those grounds, the release direction was set aside and the matter remitted to customs for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition could be entertained for release of imported goods when the importer's request was still under consideration and had not been rejected by the customs authorities. (ii) Whether conditional release of second-hand photocopier machines could be ordered in the absence of the licence required under the Exim Policy, and whether the order of release without reasons was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition could be entertained for release of imported goods when the importer's request was still under consideration and had not been rejected by the customs authorities.

Analysis: A writ of mandamus depends on a request followed by denial. Where the importer's representation was pending consideration and there was no rejection, the essential element of denial was absent. The court also noted that there was no pleading of inordinate delay. In these circumstances, the writ court ought to have examined the maintainability of the petition before directing release of the goods.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the facts presented, and the direction for immediate release could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether conditional release of second-hand photocopier machines could be ordered in the absence of the licence required under the Exim Policy, and whether the order of release without reasons was sustainable.

Analysis: Clause 2.17 of the Exim Policy, as amended by Notification No. 31 (RE-2005)/2004-2009 dated 19th October, 2005, allowed second-hand capital goods freely, but second-hand photocopier machines only against a licence. Since no licence was produced, the goods were liable to be dealt with according to law and the importer could not insist on immediate release. The court further held that the impugned order contained no reasons, and a reasoned or speaking order was necessary, especially where disputed issues concerning release of goods were involved.

Conclusion: Conditional release without the required licence was unjustified, and the order of the learned single Judge was unsustainable for want of reasons.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court set aside the order directing release of the goods and remitted the matter to the customs authorities to consider the importer's representation and pass orders in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not direct release of imported goods where the importer's request is still pending and there is no denial by the authorities, and goods restricted by the applicable import policy cannot be ordered to be released without the mandatory licence; in such matters, the authority must act by a reasoned speaking order.

---