Customs Circular violating S. 110A Held Void: Delhi HC Orders Provisional Release of Imported Multi-Functional Printer and photocopier Machine [Read Order]
The court rejected the Customs’ reliance on Circular 35/2017, reiterating that executive circulars cannot override statutory provisions.
![Customs Circular violating S. 110A Held Void: Delhi HC Orders Provisional Release of Imported Multi-Functional Printer and photocopier Machine [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/09/22/2089701-printer-and-photocopier-machinepng.webp "Customs Circular violating S. 110A Held Void: Delhi HC Orders Provisional Release of Imported Multi-Functional Printer and photocopier Machine [Read Order]")
The Delhi High Court has provisionally released the imported multi-functional printer and photocopier Machine on deposit of 50% of the applicable duty. The court upheld the coordinate bench of the same high court that Customs Circular No. 35/2017-Cus dated 16 August 2017 is contrary to Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore void.
The petitions were filed by M/s Nageswara Trade, whose imported consignment of multi-functional printers and photocopier machines was seized by Customs authorities under a seizure memo dated 2 January 2025.
The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the seizure memo was defective, as it neither specified reasons nor was promptly provided, having been shared months after the seizure. It was contended that Customs wrongly denied provisional release by relying on Circular No. 35/2017-Cus, which prohibited release of certain goods.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
In addition, it was also stated that the said circular had already been declared void by coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court in Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. and Shanus Impex, as it exceeded the mandate of Section 110A.
The petitioner further submitted that similar multi-functional devices were being imported across the country and several High Courts including Telangana and Madras High Courts had ordered provisional release of identical consignments subject to conditions. Therefore, denial of release solely on the basis of the circular was arbitrary, illegal, and against the settled legal position.
On behalf of Customs, it was argued that the goods were prohibited as they lacked Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification and could not be released.
The Department relied on Section 46(4A) of the Customs Act and the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, to contend that such devices could pose risks and were restricted for import. It was also contended that the petitioner suppressed details of earlier proceedings and hence was not entitled to relief.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain rejected the Customs’ reliance on Circular 35/2017, reiterating that executive circulars cannot override statutory provisions.
While observing earlier Delhi HC precedents, the Court held that the circular unlawfully restricted the discretion vested in adjudicating authorities under Section 110A, which permits provisional release of any seized goods upon conditions.
Affective Ways Of Tax Planning for HUF, Partnership Firm and Will - Click Here
The Court also noted consistent judicial practice across High Courts allowing provisional release of similar devices, reinforcing that complete prohibition was unjustified. It said that while adjudication on confiscation or penalty may proceed, provisional release could not be barred outright.
Accordingly, the bench ordered Customs to calculate applicable duty on the seized goods (valued at ₹47.56 lakh) and directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the duty and furnish a bond for the balance, including any penalties. After that, the goods were to be released within one week.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
