Customs Cannot Withhold Part Of Consignment After Accepting Full Bond, Guarantee : CESTAT Kolkata
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that Customs authorities were not justified in continuing to detain part of a consignment of used digital multifunction print and copying machines once the importers had furnished the required bond and bank guaranteef for the entire consignment. A coram consisting of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal...
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that Customs authorities were not justified in continuing to detain part of a consignment of used digital multifunction print and copying machines once the importers had furnished the required bond and bank guaranteef for the entire consignment.
A coram consisting of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K Anpazhakan directed provisional release of 63 machines that had been withheld, noting that selective detention in such circumstances was arbitrary and discriminatory.
It observed, "Undisputedly, the appellants have already furnished 'Provisional Duty Bond' and 'Bank Guarantee', by taking into account the assessable value of the whole consignment, not only of the goods ordered to be released. As the appellants have already executed the Bond and Bank Guarantee as required for the whole consignment, we do not find any valid reason for not releasing the 63 pieces of HSEs in question. Accordingly, we are of the view that 63 pieces of HSEs imported by the appellants are to be provisionally released, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as mentioned in the order passed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court."
It was hearing appeals filed by Atul Automation Pvt. Ltd. and other importers against orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. While they had allowed provisional release of a substantial part of four consignments of used digital multifunction print and copying machines, it apparently withheld 63 units on the ground that the model-wise import limit had been exceeded. The importers had already executed provisional duty bonds and furnished bank guarantees covering the assessable value of the entire consignments.
The authorities had invoked the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2021, contending that Highly Specialised Equipment (HSE) could be imported only up to 100 units per model per calendar year, counted collectively across all importers. On this basis, they detained machines which allegedly crossed this limit.
Importers argued that there was no centralized monitoring mechanism to apply this limit on a pan-India basis and that different Customs ports followed different practices, leading to discrimination. They also pointed out that in similar cases, goods had been released pursuant to orders of the Calcutta High Court, which were later affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The tribunal noted that although the goods were admittedly restricted items, Customs authorities had failed to evolve a centralized system to monitor model-wise import limits for over a decade despite repeated directions from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. It also observed that earlier cases, including those affirmed up to the Supreme Court, used HSEs were provisionally released against bond and bank guarantee, without any quantity-based restriction.
It further noted that in the present case, the importers had already furnished bond and bank guarantee considering the assessable value of the entire consignment, leaving no justification to withhold part of the goods. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that such selective detention was arbitrary, whimsical and discriminatory and ordered immediate provisional release of all 63 detained machines, subject to the same conditions as laid down by the Calcutta High Court in similar matters and disposed the appeals.
Case Title: Atul Automation Private Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 4
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 76064 of 2025 Final Order Nos. 77912-77915/2025
For Appellant: Advocate Srikant Kumar Mohapatra Along with Advocates Arijit Goswami,
For Respondent: Advocate Subrata Debnath, Authorized Representative