Disposed

Dark Line Copier, v. the Commissioner of Customs

Kerala HC3 Sept 2019WP(C)/8944/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Customs Commissioner to inspect detained used digital multifunction machines and classify them as restricted or prohibited goods within four weeks, refusing to adjudicate the classification or release as it requires primary authority inspection.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to inspect the goods and pass an order on their classification and release within four weeks.

Dark Line Copier, Vs the Commissioner of Customs — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 12TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.8944 OF 2019(P)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

DARK LINE COPIER, 14, MERMAID TOWER-1, PLOT NO 32/33 SECTOR-11, CBD BELPUR, NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400614,REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, BIPIN LIRA NOR, S/O LIRA RUDA NOR , AGED 39 YEARS.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SRI.M.A.BABY SMT.LINDA.M.J. SMT.CIMY VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND COCHIN-682 009

¶11

R1 BY SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.09.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).10366/2019(U), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶14

-2-

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 12TH BHADRA, 1941

¶18

WP(C).No.10366 OF 2019(U)

¶19

PETITIONER/S:

¶20

COLOR ENTERPRISES, NO.42,BHEEMA HILLS,PARRI POORNA VINAYAKAR KOIL STREET,MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. ARCHANA DEVENDRAN DEENADAYAL AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.SHRI D. DEVENDRAN

¶21

BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SRI.M.A.BABY SMT.LINDA.M.J. SMT.CIMY VARGHESE

¶22

RESPONDENT/S:

¶23

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE,WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.

¶24

R1 BY SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.09.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).8944/2019(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶27

-3-

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

[ WP(C).8944/2019, WP(C).10366/2019 ]

¶30

Dated this the 3rd day of September 2019

¶31

Heard Adv.P.A. Augustine for the petitioner and Adv. P.R. Sreejith for respondents.

¶32

The petitioners in these two writ petitions though are distinct entities, as the writ prayers are substantially same, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. The counsel have treated W.P.(C) No.8944 of 2019 as the lead writ petition and have made submissions by referring to the record in W.P.(C) No.8944 of 2019. It is further stated that consideration of circumstances in lead writ petition would be sufficient for disposing of the other writ petition as well.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.8944 of 2019

¶34

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶35

-4-

¶36

The petitioner does business of importing and exporting goods under Certificate of Import-Export Code (IEC) dated 14.08.2013 (Ext.P1). The petitioner in February 2017 imported Digital Multifunction Machines (DMM) through Cochin Port under the administrative control of respondent herein. Bills of Entry Nos. 8594132, 8593174, 8593194, 8595652 and 8595656 dated 17.02.2017 (Ext.P2) were filed with the Cochin Customs House. The respondent detained the goods imported through Ext.P2 alleging illegality. The petitioner was informed that as per the amended provisions of law the petitioner is required to produce Extended Producers (EPR) certificate as per E-waste Management Rules (EMR), 2016. The petitioner complied with the said requirement by securing Ext.P3 EPR Certificate dated 21.04.2017. The petitioner through Ext.P4 letter dated 05.05.2017 requested for provisional release of imported goods in Ext.P2 Bills of Entry. Contrary to the

¶37

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶38

-5-

¶39

standard practice of examination of goods by Customs approved Chartered Engineer, the respondent insisted to get examination of imported goods in Ext.P2 by a Chartered Engineer appointed by Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The petitioner with a view to avoiding delay in customs clearance agreed to the said condition as well. The respondent, however, restricted the inspection of goods to Bill of Entry No.8593174 dated 17.02.2017. The report of the approved Chartered Engineer of DGFT dated 30.12.2017, is filed by the petitioner. The respondent, in spite of report in Ext.P3 did not release the goods imported through Ext.P2. The petitioner further states that the residuary life of used DMM is more than five years and this ground cannot come in the way for clearing the goods imported through Ext.P2. The petitioner, while alleging against arbitrary approach of respondent, refers to orders in similar cases viz M/s. Parag Domestic Appliances and M/s. Atul

¶40

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶41

-6-

¶42

Automation dated 28.02.2017, appeals filed by the said importer

¶43

before the CESTAT in Customs Appeal No. 20981/2017-DB and final order No.21592-21594/2017 dated 09.08.2017. The Customs Appeal No.18 of 2017 filed against order dated 09.08.2017 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2018. On 24.01.2019 the Civil Appeal filed against judgment dated 14.03.2018 was dismissed

¶44

By drawing comparison with the orders stated supra the petitioner contends that the issue of import of DMM, whether comes under 'restricted' or 'prohibited' category, is no

¶45

more res integra . The petitioner relies on Section 124¹ of Customs

¶46

1 124. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc.— No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person—

¶47

(a) is given a notice in 1[writing with the prior approval of the officer of customs not below the rank of a Deputy Commissioner of Customs, informing] him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty;

¶48

(b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and

¶49

¶50

Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may at the request of the person concerned be oral.

¶51

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶52

-7-

¶53

Act of Customs Act and contends that the respondent did not issue show-cause notice to petitioner within six months and with the expiry of six months the respondent is under legal obligation to restore goods to petitioner. The petitioner relies on the judgment reported in Jatin Ahuja Vs. Union of India² . The imported goods cannot come under the category of ‘prohibited' goods to order for absolute confiscation/re-export. The circumstances of the case do not warrant re-export of goods either. The petitioner is entitled for provisional release of subject goods on petitioner paying applicable duties etc. The respondent issued restrain order to the Customs Fright Station on the ground that Ext.P2 imported goods are liable for confiscation and such conclusion by respondent is without basis, in law and on fact.

¶54

Provided further that notwithstanding issue of notice under this Section, the proper officer may issue a supplementary notice under such circumstances and in such manner as may be prescribed.

¶55

2 2013 (287) E.L.T. 3 (Del)

¶56

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶57

-8-

¶58

The petitioner states that the continued inaction in clearing the goods is at the instance of multi-national companies engaged in the import and trading of virgin machines in India. The petitioner states that goods imported through Ext.P2 do not violate the applicable laws of India. The respondent, owing to a view already taken in this behalf which is found to be erroneous and illegal by CESTAT and Courts, is unable to accept the current facts stated by the petitioner and the effect of orders passed by CESTAT, this Court and the Apex Court. The petitioner's main grievance is that till date the respondent did not inspect the total stock/imported goods and communicated the omissions the respondent has noted in this behalf. The action of respondent is completely illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Therefore by raising a few grounds, namely detention of goods even after obtaining the report of Chartered Engineer and also completing the procedural

¶59

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶60

-9-

¶61

formalities is illegal; the petitioner was not given provisional release, which could be on executing bond equal to the difference between the duty to be assessed and provisional duty, but not exceeding 20% of provisional duty; notice as mandated by statutory provisions was not issued again to avoid release of goods; the goods imported are not prohibited goods for absolute confiscation; the delay in clearing the goods is causing hardship to petitioner as the demurrage charge is mounting with each passing day and the goods are also getting damaged due to improper storage, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the imported goods under Ext.P2 Bills of Entry and direct the respondent to allow provisional release of goods imported and reported through Bills of Entry Nos.8594132, 8593174, 8593194, 8595652 and 8595656 dated 17.02.2017.

¶62

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶63

-10-

¶64

Mr.Philip Sebastian, the Assistant Commissioner of

¶65

Customs (Legal), Custom House, Cochin, filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent. The Digital Multifunction Device imported and reported for customs clearance through Bills of Entry Nos. 8594132, 8593174, 8593194, 8595652 and 8595656 dated 17.02.2017 attract Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Tran boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (H&OW Rules, 2016), E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 and Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order 2012 (EITG Order 2012). The respondent asserts that goods imported through Ext.P2 are in violation of FTP, H&OW Rules, 2016, E- waste (Management) Rules, 2016 and EITG Order 2012. To explain violations under the above Rules and Regulations the respondent states thus:

¶66

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶67

-11-

¶68

“....The importer is not in possession of mandatory Authorization/ License from DGFT for import of these ‘Restricted Goods’ which is only allowed to be imported by Actual Users. The importer is a ‘Trader’ and not an actual user.

¶69

In the present case, the importer has imported “restricted goods as per FTP without mandatory Authorization from DGFT. Thus violated section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The goods also require registration from BIS or exemption from MeitY as per CRO, 2012. By not producing BIS registration or exemption from MeitY they have violated the provisions of CRO, 2012. Further, they have also violated the various conditions under the H&OW Rules, 2012 such as nonproduction of Form 6 & Form 7, violation of Direct re-use condition, non-production of Inspection certificate from the country of export, non-production of acknowledgement copy of annual returns etc.

¶70

..... that as per the condition 4(j)(b) of Schedule VIII to the H&OW Rules, 2016, the importer of MFD is required to produce a “certificate issued by the inspection agency as certified by the exporting country or inspection and certification agency approved by Directorate General of

¶71

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶72

-12-

¶73

Foreign Trade (DGFT) for functionality having residual life of not less than five years with serial number”. Further condition 4(j)(d) of Schedule VIII specifies that ‘MFD shall be for printing A3 size and above’. Further, these goods can only be imported for directed-reuse. In order to satisfy these conditions the, goods have to be inspected by the agency specified above and the inspection certificate has to necessarily accompany each consignment of MFD. Whereas, no such inspection certificates were produced by the importer from the country of export to satisfy the above mentioned conditions. Accordingly, the non-production of the mandatory inspection certificate is a violation of the condition mentioned in the H&OW Rules, 2016.

¶74

.... that Extended Producer Responsibility Authorization (EPRA) is a mandatory document to be submitted by the importer for import of used MFD as per condition 4(j)(c) of Schedule VIII of the H&OW Rules, 2016. Despite, the H&OW Rules, 2016 was notified in April 2016 which specifies that EPAA has to be obtained as per E Water Rules, 2011, the importer did not obtain this mandatory document from the State Pollution Control Board. Without this mandatory document, they had imported these goods which is in violation of the H&OW Rules, 2016 & the E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2011. After the goods

¶75

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶76

-13-

¶77

were imported, they had applied for EPRA to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the Authorization was issued on 21.04.2017 by the CPCB.

¶78

The imported item viz. old and used MFDs also attracts the provisions of the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 (CRO, 2012) the true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(2).

¶79

The importer failed to produce Inspection Certificate from the Country of export to fulfill the conditions specified in the H&OW Rules, 2016 such as residual life of the machine, functionality of the machines and direct reuse conditions etc. Further, they had also not submitted the import documents to the department for further verification as required under the Customs Act & the Hazardous and Other Wastes, Rules, 2016.”

¶80

7. After elaborately setting out the above objections

¶81

against writ prayer, the respondent denies the allegation that

¶82

the delay is not on account of the influence exerted by anyone

¶83

on the respondent but completely on account of petitioner’s

¶84

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶85

-14-

¶86

failure to submit all the certificates required in this behalf for inspection etc, under the Act. In other words, the contention of petitioner that the action of respondent is on the influence of multinational companies is baseless. The importer is trying to mislead the facts to get the prohibited goods cleared from import. DMM if are dumped in India to avoid accumulation of defective and used goods in exporting countries, such dumping results in e-waste accumulation beyond salvation. The developed countries are using India as a dumping ground. As per the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPRA), which has been in existence in developed countries, the producers ought to buy back e-waste/goods and handle/disposal of the goods in a safe manner. To avoid the responsibility and the expense involved in such process these types of goods are exported to other countries in the guise of used electronic goods.

¶87

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶88

-15-

¶89

The learned counsel appearing for the parties have made elaborate and extensive arguments by referring to FTP, H&OW Rules, 2016, E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 and EITG Order 2012. After perusing the record, the following circumstances are noted at the outset:

¶90

a) The petitioner imported goods DMM and according to petitioner goods imported do not come under prohibited category or compliant to the requirements of law of land. b) The petitioner relies on the orders passed by the CESTAT, this Court and the Apex Court in M/s. Parag Domestic Appliances and M/s. Atul Automation to contend that the goods imported come under 'restricted' goods but not under 'prohibited' category. The continued detention of goods without customs clearance is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶91

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶92

-16-

¶93

The respondent does not dispute the adjudication by CESTAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. But the objection, as understood by this Court, of respondent is that there cannot be general application or extension of adjudication in M/s. Parag Domestic Appliances and M/s. Atul Automation to all the goods imported with product name DMM or similar products. The definite case of respondent is that the goods imported through Ext.P2 come under ‘prohibited’ category. The case of petitioner is that the broad classification or entry under which the goods are imported comes under ‘restricted’ category but not ‘prohibited’ category. Therefore, the respondent must order for inspection of the goods and after collecting applicable duty, release the goods.

¶94

At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the pleadings in the writ petition and appreciate the stage at which the writ petition is filed.

¶95

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶96

-17-

¶97

“On receipt of EPR, petitioner submitted the same and also requested at least for the provisional release of goods. True copy of the letter dated 05.05.2017 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P4. As per the existing instruction, such goods are allowed to clear by conducting examination by Customs approved chartered engineer. But respondent insisted that such consignment should be subject to examination by Chartered Engineer (CE) approved by the DGFT. Since there was undue delay, petitioner expressed willingness for that also. But respondent permitted inspection of goods under B/E no. 8593174 dated 17.02.2017 only. After getting report of chartered engineer, petitioner submitted the same to respondent. True copy of the report of CE dated 30.12.17 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P5. Thereafter concerned officer assured that the proceedings will be completed at the earliest.”

¶98

11. From the above it is clear that inspection of goods

¶99

imported under the Bill of Entry has not been taken so far by the respondent. There is a serious dispute on whether the subject goods comes under ‘restricted’ category or ‘prohibited’ category under various Enactments, Rules and Regulations

¶100

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶101

-18-

¶102

referred to above. This Court, without determination on the

¶103

aspect by the authorities in accordance with law ought not to

¶104

accept one view or the other strenuously canvassed by the

¶105

parties. The petitioner relies on Section 110³ of Customs Act.

¶106

3 110. Seizure of goods, documents and things. (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods:

¶107

Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer.

¶108

(1A) The Central Government may, having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods, depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time, constraints of storage space for the goods or any other relevant considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-section (1), be disposed of by the proper officer in such manner as the Central Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.

¶109

(1B) Where any goods, being goods specified under sub-section (1A), have been seized by a proper officer under sub-section (1), he shall prepare an inventory of such goods containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mark, numbers, country of origin and other particulars as the proper officer may consider relevant to the identity of the goods in any proceeding under this Act and shall make an application to a Magistrate for the purpose of—

¶110

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or

¶111

(b) taking, in the presence of the Magistrate, photographs of such goods, and certifying such photographs as true; or

¶112

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such goods, in the presence of the Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

¶113

(1C) Where an application is made under sub-section (1B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.

¶114

(2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized:

¶115

Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified;

¶116

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶117

-19-

¶118

Section 110 deals with seizure of goods, documents and things by the officer authorized by the Act. Section 110(2) deals with a situation where notice under clause (a) of Section 124 is not issued within six months of the seizure of the goods under subsection (1) and such omission obligates the officer to return the goods to person from whose possession it is seized. Condition precedent for complying Section 110(2) is an order of seizure

¶119

under Section 110 of Customs Act. It is not the case of petitioner that order for seizure of goods imported through Ext.P2 has been made by respondent. The allegations in the writ petition are to the effect that there is complete inaction notwithstanding the decision of Courts of competent jurisdiction on the very same point. While arguing the writ

¶120

Provided Further that where any order for provisional release of the seized goods has been passed under Section 110A, the specified period of six months shall not apply. (3) The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act.

¶121

(4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extract therefrom in the presence of a officer of customs.

¶122

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶123

-20-

¶124

petition an attempt was made on one hand by the petitioner to get a declaration from this Court that the goods imported through Ext.P2 are entitled to be provisionally released albeit payment of applicable tariffs. On the other hand, an attempt is made by the respondent to get a decision on the goods imported, that the goods imported through Ext.P2 come under ‘prohibited’ category.

¶125

In the considered view of this Court either of these requests are taken note of and adjudication undertaken in this writ petition, such exercise amounts to this Court discharging primary function fastened by law on the respondent and the other officers authorized in this behalf by FTP, H&OW Rules, 2016, E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 and EITG Order 2012. In other words, without physical inspection by the authorities concerned and/or assistance from the reports of Chartered Engineers, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) etc, this

¶126

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶127

-21-

¶128

Court ought not to express a view on the goods imported; whether it comes under ‘restricted’ or ‘prohibited’ category. It may be that the decision in M/s. Parag Domestic Appliances and M/s. Atul Automation has attained finality with the dismissal of appeal by the Apex Court. The judicial precedence shall be applied after a decision on the quality, nature etc of goods imported is determined, but not under Article 226 of Constitution on verified affidavits. The inspection of the entire consignment by authorities and report from them is a condition precedent for any decision taken by respondent in this behalf. This is also wanting in this case. This Court is not pursuaded at this juncture to assume that the goods imported through Ext.P2 come either under ‘restricted’ category or ‘prohibited’ category. But at the same time the Court is not convinced with the continued inaction on the part of respondent in taking up the goods imported through Ext.P2 consignment, for inspection or

¶129

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶130

-22-

¶131

get the goods inspected by authorities empowered by various Rules and Regulations, receive their reports and then pronounce its view/order. A situation resulting in stalemate is presented by the inaction of respondent.

¶132

Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶133

a) The petitioner notices the objections raised by the respondent in the counter affidavit filed in this behalf and the petitioner is given liberty to request within two weeks from today, the respondent herein or, through the respondent, such competent authority, to inspect the goods imported and obtain report or certificate, as the case may be, on the specification, nature etc of goods imported. By referring to the certificate/authorization/ report made available in this behalf the respondent passes an order whether the goods imported, comes under

¶134

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶135

-23-

¶136

‘restricted’ category or ‘prohibited’ category. If the goods imported come under ‘restricted’ category what are the obligations the petitioner is required to comply with for customs clearance. The respondent passes orders as are deemed within five weeks from today.

¶137

b) The above directions are issued firstly to prevent passage of goods if prohibited, which may result in India being used as a dumping ground for prohibited goods and simultaneously prevent the respondent from mixing up ‘restricted’ goods with ‘prohibited’ goods categories and continuously keep the goods imported in a state of uncertainty.

¶138

c) The entire exercise is directed to be completed within four weeks from today.

¶139

W.P.(C) No.10366 of 2019

¶140

Having regard to above discussions, W.P.(C) No.10366 of

¶141

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶142

-24-

¶143

2019 is also disposed of in the same terms and conditions as

noted above.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

jjj

-25-

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶151

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8944/2019

¶152

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶153

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF IMPORT EXPORT CODE (IEC) DATED 14.8.2013

¶154

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BILLS OF ENTRY NOS DATED 17.2.2017 WITH BILL OF LADING AND INVOICE

¶155

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ERP DATED 21.4.2017

¶156

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.5.2017

¶157

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF CE DATED 30.12.2017

¶158

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.3.2018 IN CUS APPEAL NO

¶159

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.4.2018 IN RP NO 316/2018

¶160

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.1.2019 IN SLP (C) 12704 OF 2018 AND SLP (C) 16204 OF 2018

¶161

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.3.2019 IN CONTEMPT CASE NO 296/2019

¶162

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.3.2019 IN CONTEMPT CASE NO 296/2019

¶163

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF JATIN AHUJA VS UNION OF INDIA REPORT IN 2013 (287)ELT 3 DEL

¶164

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶165

EXHIBIT R1(1) TRUE COPY OF THE FOREIGN TRADE POLICE 2015-2020. EXHIBIT R1(2) TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GOODS (REQUIREMENTS OF COMPULSORY REGISTRATION) ORDER, 2012 (CR0,2012)

¶166

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶167

-26-

¶168

EXHIBIT R1(3) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 07.11.2014 OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

¶169

EXHIBIT R1(4) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.12.2016 OF THE JOINT SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI. EXHIBIT R1(5) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.3.2017 OF THE MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (MEITY). EXHIBIT R1(6) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATIN SO NO.3022 DATED 11.09.2013 OF THE MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (MEITY).

¶170

EXHIBIT R1(7) TRUE COPY OF THE 61ST RECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 20TH AND 21ST MARCH (MOEF-HSM DIVISION).

¶171

EXHIBIT R1(8) TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES TO THE E-WASTE RULES, 2016.

¶172

EXHIBIT R1(9) TRUE COPY OF THE 55TH TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (TRC) OF HSM DIVISION-MOEF HELD ON 18TH JULY 2016.

¶173

EXHIBIT R1(10) TRUE COPY OF THE 55TH RECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (TRC) MEETING HELD ON 27TH AND 28TH JUNE 2016 HMD-MOEF. EXHIBIT R1(11) TRUE COPY OF THE 57TH TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 18TH AND 19TH OCTOBER 2016 (HMD-MOEF).

¶174

W.P.(C) Nos.8944 & 10366/2019

¶175

-27-

¶176

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10366/2019

¶177

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶178

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF IMPORT-EXPORT CODE(IEC)DATED 31.01.14.

¶179

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF BILL OF ENTRY NO.86266437 DATED 21.02.17 WITH BILL OF LADING (B/L)AND INVOICE.

¶180

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ERP DATED 21.4.17

¶181

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.05.17

¶182

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.01.19 IN SLP(C)NO.12704 OF 2018 AND SLP(C)16204 OF 2018.

¶183

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF JATIN AHUJA VS UNION OF INDIA,REPORTED IN 2013(287)ELT 3 DEL.

Dark Line Copier, v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dark Line Copier, v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.R.Radhakrishnan Vs Union of India

Rajappa Kaimal Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Seethu Granites Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Empire Distributors, Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

M/S.Reality Propertys Planners Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Tax Officer (Wc)

Arun.S.Reddy Vs State of Kerala