Case Details: Shree Hari Copier vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (2025) 36 Centax 159 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
- Shri N. Viswanathan, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Siddharth Bhandari, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, an importer of second-hand Digital Multifunction Print, Copying and Scanning Machines, sought provisional release of the seized goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer declared the goods as second-hand Digital Multi-Function Devices (MFDs) qualifying as highly specialised equipment (HSEs) and therefore freely importable. The authorities doubted the declaration and declined release, while the importer contended that once a declaration is made, Customs Authorities must produce sufficient evidence to support any contrary suspicion and, in the absence of such evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that second-hand Digital MFD qualifying as highly specialized equipment are freely importable and eligible for provisional release. The Court observed that upon receipt of the importer’s declaration, the Customs Authorities were required to furnish adequate evidence to justify their doubts, and if they failed to do so, the benefit of doubt would ordinarily vest in the importer. The Court further held that in the absence of material disproving the declaration, rejection of the importer’s claim was unsustainable. The High Court accordingly directed the Customs Authorities to release the goods by imposing such conditions as they deemed fit, subject to final adjudication by the Customs Department.
List of Cases Cited
- Taanish Enterprises v. Commissioner — (2025) 35 Centax 293 (Mad.) — Relied on [Paras 5, 6]
