TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur consignments of "Used Highly Specialized Equipment Digital Multifunction Print & Copying Machine" imported by the Appellant, the Ld. Principal Commissioner has withheld provisional release of 21 pieces, 28 pieces, 7 pieces and 7 pieces of multifunction print and copying machines respectively, totalling 63 pieces. 1.1. The issue involved being common, the appeals are taken up together for disposal by way of a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Atul Automation Private Limited, Mumbai, M/s. Ace Office Solutions, Mumbai, M/s. Teqnozo Ceramics Private Limited, Mumbai and M/s. Mech and Tech, Mumbai, the appellants herein, have imported the said consignments and filed Bills of Entry for clearance thereof, as under: - Sl. No. Bill of Entry No. & Date Name of the importer 1. 8465935 dtd. 20.02.2025 Atul Automation 2. 8178012 dated 04.02.2025 Ace Office Solutions 3. 8872492 dated 13.03.2025 Teqnozo Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. 4. 8316167 dated 12.02.2025 M/s. Mech and Tech 2.1. The Bills of Entry were sent for 100% examination, in presence of Empanelled Government Approved Chartered Engineer. The Shed Officers examined the cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed provisionally against P.D. Bond and bank guarantee. The provisional release of the 63 pieces has been withheld by the Ld. Principal Commissioner, holding that the model which has crossed the maximum import limit of 100 Pcs. per calendar year per model should be held detained/seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the remaining quantities which are within the maximum permissible quantities should be provisionally released subject to this provisional release order. 5.1. Aggrieved by the said orders withholding provisional release of 63 pieces of HSEs imported in the subject consignments, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants. 6. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants mentioned that earlier, a consignment of similar goods had been seized by the Kolkata Customs authorities, for which the importer had moved a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court; the said litigation went to the Hon'ble Apex Court. He states that finally, in terms of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the seized goods were provisionally released against bond and bank guarantee; the said release was subject to the orders to be pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... As per the provisions of BIS Act, 2016, no person shall manufacture, import, distribute, sell, hire, lease, store or exhibit for sale any such goods notified under CRO without a Standard Mark, except under a valid licence. Further, the import of second-hand goods is restricted and requires authorization from DGFT as per the provisions of para 2.31 for Foreign Trade Policy irrespective of falling under HSE criteria." (iii) From the above, it is abundantly clear that way back in 2013, Customs was advised to evolve a process for centralised monitoring the aspect that HSEs are imported in less than 100 units per model in a year throughout India, which has not been done even after 11 years. As a result, different policies have been adopted at different locations in India. Whereas in Chennai, this aspect of restricting year-wise total import of a particular model of HSE does not appear to be monitored; in Kolkata, it is being done by counting the numbers imported only in Kolkata which is against the specific opinion given in the O.M. dated 10.07.2024, at para 2.(i), that "For the purpose of imports under HSE, the criteria of 100 unit per model per year is meant for import of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y them also should be ordered to be released provisionally so long model-wise quantity thereof, imported by them does not exceed the prescribed limit of 100 numbers in a year. (ix) The impugned order is otherwise also erroneous because, while ordering furnishing of "Provisional Duty Bond" and "Bank Guarantee", the amounts of such bond and bank guarantee have been decided considering the assessable value of the whole consignments, not of only the goods ordered to be released. (x) By the said wrongful, biased and discriminatory order passed by the Respondent, the appellants have been irreparably prejudiced for no fault on their part and in any event the said order is unjust, oppressive, disproportionate, violative of principles of natural justice, unreasonable and against all canons of justice and equity in the facts and circumstances of the case and materials and evidence on record and is liable to be set aside for this reason alone. 6.2. In addition, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants drawn our attention to the decision passed by this Bench of the Tribunal, wherein, while deciding the Customs Appeal No. 75879 of 2025 filed by M/s. Arahant Automation against a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that in Chennai, this aspect of restricting year-wise total import of a particular model of HSE does not appear to be monitored, whereas in Kolkata the same is being done, by counting the numbers imported and that such a practice is in existence only in Kolkata. 10. We also take note of the fact that earlier, a consignment of similar goods had been seized by the Kolkata Customs authorities. The importer had moved a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the litigation went to the Hon'ble Apex Court. Finally, in terms of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the seized goods were provisionally released against bond and bank guarantee; the said release was subject to the final orders to be passed by the Department in adjudication. 10.1. The Order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court is reproduced below for ready reference: - "Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent Customs authority concerned in considering and disposing the application of the petitioner dated 28th February, 2024, being Annexure P....