The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has allowed a batch of appeals and directed provisional release of 63 units of used digital multifunction print and copying machines, which had been withheld by the Customs authorities despite partial provisional release of the consignments. The Tribunal held that the selective detention of the goods was arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly in the absence of any centralised mechanism to monitor the model-wise import cap for Highly Specialised Equipment (HSE).
The dispute arose from the import of consignments of used highly specialised digital multifunction print and copying machines by the appellants at the Kolkata Port during February–March 2025. Though the Bills of Entry were subjected to 100% examination in the presence of a government-approved Chartered Engineer and the goods were found to match the declared description, make and quantity, the consignments were seized under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that the import of used HSEs was restricted. Pending adjudication, the appellants sought provisional release to avoid demurrage.
The Customs authorities agreed to provisional release but withheld 63 machines, taking the view that under the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2021, only 100 units per model per calendar year could be imported, and that this limit had already been exceeded at the Kolkata Port. The appellants contended that the cap applied per importer, not cumulatively across all importers, and further argued that Customs had failed to evolve any nationwide mechanism for monitoring such limits, resulting in uneven and discriminatory enforcement across ports.
The Division Bench comprising Shri Ashok Jindal (Member–Judicial) and Shri K. Anpazhakan (Member–Technical) took note of the Office Memorandum dated July 10, 2024 issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), which clarified that the 100-unit limit applies collectively across all ports and importers, but also acknowledged that Customs had been advised as early as 2013 to create a centralised monitoring system—something that remained unimplemented even after more than a decade. The Bench observed that different ports were following different practices, with no evidence of similar restrictions being enforced uniformly at other Customs Houses such as Chennai.
The Tribunal also relied on earlier judicial orders, including directions of the Calcutta High Court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, where used HSEs were ordered to be provisionally released against bond and bank guarantee without any quantity restriction, subject to final adjudication. Noting that the appellants had already furnished provisional duty bonds and bank guarantees covering the assessable value of the entire consignments, the Tribunal held that there was no valid justification to continue withholding the remaining 63 machines.
Accordingly, the CESTAT set aside the impugned provisional release orders to the extent they withheld release of the 63 units, and directed Customs to provisionally release the goods upon execution of bond and bank guarantee, in terms consistent with the High Court and Supreme Court directions. The appeals were disposed of on these terms.
Appearances:
For the Appellants – Advocate Srikant Kumar Mohapatra, along with Arijit Goswami,
For the Respondent – Authorised Representative Subrata Debnath
