M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

This case involves multiple writ petitions filed by various importers, including AK Imports and Exports, Moksha Business Machines, and Digital Print Solutions, against the Commissioner of Customs and other customs authorities. The petitioners challenged the seizure of secondhand highly specialized equipment, specifically digital multifunction print, copy, and scanning machines, imported by them. The seizures were based on various grounds, including alleged violations of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and Meity Notifications. The petitioners sought the release of their goods upon payment of applicable duties and waiver of demurrage charges. In some cases, the challenge was also directed against a Meity Notification seeking to include multifunctional devices under compulsory registration. The petitioners also sought provisional release of the goods pending final adjudication.

Held

The High Court disposed of all the writ petitions. The Court noted that pending the writ petitions, interim orders were passed, which enabled the petitioners for the release of goods. Subsequently, orders-in-original or orders-in-appeal were passed, which the petitioners had separately challenged in further writ petitions. The Court found that in light of the interim orders granted by the Bench, which were subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court and affirmed, and with the conditional interim orders being complied with, there was no useful purpose in keeping the present writ petitions pending. The Court also observed that the objections raised by the respondents could still be adjudicated upon in the subsequent writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the orders-in-original or orders-in-appeal. Therefore, the Court held that the writ petitions should be disposed of as nothing remained to be adjudicated upon in them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in seizing the imported secondhand digital multifunction print, copy, and scanning machines was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Import-Export Policy 2023, and Meity Notification S.O. No. 2844(E) dated 01.07.2021, thereby violating the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether Notification No. 1236(E) dated 01.01.2020, issued by the respondent, seeking to include multifunctional devices under the "Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012," was without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, and the BIS Rules, 1987? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the seizures were illegal and arbitrary, violating their fundamental rights. They contended that the goods were properly declared and applicable taxes were paid on the enhanced value. They also argued that the Meity Notification was beyond the scope of the relevant Acts. They sought the release of goods and waiver of demurrage charges. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record the arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, their actions of seizing the goods and issuing seizure memos indicate their stance that the importations were in contravention of applicable laws and policies.