Provisional release of imported multifunction devices turns on exemption status, trade policy classification, and customs-stage compliance.

Second-hand digital multifunction devices were treated as exempt from the compulsory registration regime because the record showed they met the stated criteria for highly specialised equipment, including low model-wise annual volume and substantial weight. Under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, the goods were not placed in the restricted category, so prior DGFT authorisation was not treated as a bar. Provisional release was also not refused for want of seizure, formal application, or reliance on the hazardous-waste rules, which were read as requiring customs documentation rather than prior environmental permission for the category concerned. Final merits remained open, but provisional release was directed subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether second-hand digital multifunction devices imported by the petitioners were exempt from the compulsory registration regime and therefore freely importable as highly specialized equipment; (ii) whether prior authorisation from the Director General of Foreign Trade was required under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023; (iii) whether provisional release could be declined for want of seizure, formal application, or on the basis of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.

Issue (i): whether second-hand digital multifunction devices imported by the petitioners were exempt from the compulsory registration regime and therefore freely importable as highly specialized equipment.

Analysis: The compulsory registration order of 2012 did not cover the subject goods, and the later 2021 regime, as amended, exempted highly specialized equipment meeting the prescribed criteria. The record, including the Chartered Engineer's report, showed that the imported machines were in less than 100 units per model per year and weighed more than 80 kg. Earlier judicial decisions had already treated the same class of goods as highly specialized equipment and freely importable, and that view had been followed and upheld in later proceedings. The Court accepted that the petitioners satisfied the exemption criteria.

Conclusion: The subject goods were held to be exempt from the compulsory registration regime and to be freely importable; this issue was answered in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether prior authorisation from the Director General of Foreign Trade was required under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023.

Analysis: The Court applied its earlier interpretation of the relevant policy entries and held that the subject goods did not fall within the restricted category invoked by the respondents. On the policy structure then in force, goods outside the specifically restricted entries fell within the residual freely importable category. The later amendment relied upon by the respondents was held not to defeat the petitioners' claim for provisional release in these cases, particularly in light of the prior binding and followed decisions on the same commodity.

Conclusion: Prior DGFT authorisation was not treated as a bar to release of the goods in these writ petitions; this issue was answered in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (iii): whether provisional release could be declined for want of seizure, formal application, or on the basis of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.

Analysis: The goods had been detained and not seized, so the objection based on the absence of a seizure-triggered application was rejected. The Court further held that the hazardous-waste regime did not prohibit import of the goods on a prima facie reading, since the relevant rules required filing of documents with customs rather than prior permission of the environmental ministry for the category concerned. The Court also applied the principle of benefit of doubt at the provisional stage, noting that final adjudication could still reverse the interim release if warranted.

Conclusion: Provisional release could not be refused on these grounds; this issue was answered in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the customs authorities were directed to pass provisional release orders subject to conditions and to release the goods upon compliance, while leaving final adjudication open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are shown prima facie to fall within an exempted or freely importable category, and no legal prohibition is established at the stage of detention, provisional release should ordinarily be granted under the customs statute subject to appropriate conditions, leaving the merits to final adjudication.

---