Provisional release ordered for seized multifunction printers and photocopiers; seizure memo held without jurisdiction, subject to conditions

HC allowed the petition and held that provisional release of the seized multi-functional devices could not be entirely prohibited. The seizure memo was treated as without jurisdiction and contrary to relevant policy principles, and the court directed provisional release of the imported multi-function printers/photocopiers subject to compliance with specified conditions and requirements to be met by the petitioner. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with the Show Cause Notice to be processed while the goods remain provisionally released.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether a seizure memo that does not state the violation or gives delayed notice is a valid ground to sustain seizure of imported goods.

1.2 Whether Circular No. 35/2017-Customs (para 2) which categorically excludes certain categories of goods from provisional release is legally sustainable in light of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

1.3 Whether multi-functional devices/IT goods imported without BIS registration or specific exemption are per se ineligible for provisional release pending adjudication under Section 110A, and whether other statutory instruments (e.g., Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules, FTP provisions) authoritatively displace the discretion under Section 110A.

1.4 If provisional release is permissible, what conditions are legally appropriate to balance the rights of the importer and public interest while adjudication continues.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of seizure memo lacking reasons / delayed communication

Legal framework: Statutory seizure and requirement of due process derive from the Customs Act and principles of fair administrative action; notices and reasons must enable meaningful challenge.

Precedent Treatment: Consideration of procedural fairness is inherent in Court decisions addressing seizures; specific coordinate-bench authority addressing the sufficiency of seizure memos was noted by the Court.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the seizure memo did not specify the violation and that the petitioner received substantive communication at an earlier date (10th September 2024) though the formal seizure memo was provided later. The Court treated the failure to specify in the seizure memo as a material concern but proceeded primarily on the law relating to provisional release under Section 110A.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's treatment of the note-deficient seizure memo is largely interlocutory/obiter in relation to the principal issue of provisional release; it does not form the core ratio determining release conditions.

Conclusions: While the defect in the seizure memo was noted, the Court proceeded to address provisional release under Section 110A and related authorities; the procedural omission did not preclude ordering provisional release subject to conditions.

Issue 2: Validity of Circular No. 35/2017-Customs vis-à-vis Section 110A

Legal framework: Section 110A expressly permits provisional release of goods, documents or things seized under section 110, on bond and with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require.

Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on and followed prior coordinate-bench decisions holding that para 2 of Circular No. 35/2017 (absolute proscription of provisional release for certain categories) is contrary to Section 110A and therefore void; the decisions of Additional Director General (Adjudication) v. Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. and a subsequent coordinate bench (Shanus Impex) were expressly followed.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that executive instructions cannot curtail the statutory discretion conferred by Section 110A by categorically excluding entire classes of goods from provisional release. While executive guidelines may supplement a statute, they cannot supplant or negate eligibility created by the statute. Thus a circular that excludes categories of goods from consideration for provisional release is ultra vires to that extent.

Ratio vs. Obiter: This is a core ratio: para 2 of the circular to the extent it curtails the statutory discretion under Section 110A is void and unenforceable.

Conclusions: Circular No. 35/2017 cannot be applied to effect an absolute prohibition on provisional release; adjudicating authorities must exercise the discretion under Section 110A and may not refuse consideration solely on the basis of the circular's proscription.

Issue 3: Whether goods lacking BIS registration / governed by Hazardous Rules are per se ineligible for provisional release

Legal framework: Section 110A provides for provisional release on bond and security; separate statutory instruments (BIS requirements under relevant regulations, FTP provisions, Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules) set out compliance requirements and may render certain imports restricted or subject to conditions or penalties.

Precedent Treatment: Courts have allowed provisional release of similar multi-functional devices subject to conditions despite lack of BIS stamping, recognizing the distinction between "eligibility" for consideration under Section 110A and the outcome of the adjudicating authority's exercise of discretion.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished between eligibility for consideration (which Section 110A guarantees) and the ultimate entitlement to release (which depends on the adjudicating authority's discretionary assessment, public interest, risk, and statutory compliance). While non-compliance with BIS or other rules may be relevant to deny release, such non-compliance does not automatically render the seized goods ineligible for provisional release without the authority's individualized, reasoned exercise of discretion. The Customs Department's bare application of the circular and categorical statements about prohibition and hazard were insufficient to foreclose provisional release.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Core ratio-non-compliance with statutory registration/standards does not ipso facto exclude goods from being considered for provisional release under Section 110A; the adjudicating authority must apply its discretion with reasons.

Conclusions: Goods lacking BIS registration or affected by hazardous-rules restrictions are not per se immune from provisional release; such matters are material for the discretion to be exercised by the adjudicating authority with reasons and may justify denial only when properly recorded.

Issue 4: Appropriate conditions for provisional release pending adjudication

Legal framework: Section 110A allows release on bond with security and conditions the adjudicating authority may require; courts have fashioned interim conditions to protect revenue and public interest while allowing possession where justified.

Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on decisions from other High Courts where provisional release of multi-functional devices was ordered subject to conditions (deposit of quantifiable duties, bonds, enhanced duty payment, timelines for quantification and release), thereby balancing competing interests.

Interpretation and reasoning: Considering precedents and the need to protect revenue and public interest, the Court exercised its equitable prerogative to permit provisional release subject to quantification and partial deposit of duty, execution of a bond to secure any additional dues/penalties, and a timeline for release. The adjudicatory proceedings (show cause notice) were to continue unimpaired.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The conditions imposed form part of the operative order in this matter (ratio as applied here) and reflect a permissible exercise of judicial authority to balance interests pending adjudication.

Conclusions: Provisional release is permissible subject to the adjudicating authority calculating applicable duty by a specified date, the importer depositing 50% of the assessed duty (assessable value to be taken as determined), execution of a bond to secure any further duties/penalties, and release within one week of compliance. Adjudication proceedings shall continue in accordance with law.

Cross-references: Issues 2 and 3 are interrelated-invalidity of the circular (Issue 2) establishes that the presence of statutory restrictions (Issue 3) does not automatically preclude consideration under Section 110A; Issue 4 follows from the Court's resolution of Issues 2 and 3 by prescribing conditional provisional release.

---