2026-VIL-686-CESTAT-MUM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Provisional release of seized drones and components seized from appellants’ premises - Appellants, authorized drone manufacturers, challenge rejection of request for provisional release - Whether the seized goods were prohibited imports under DGFT Notification No. 54/2015-20 or merely components that can be freely imported; Whether the doctrine of "benefit of doubt" applicable to ambiguous tariff classifications can be extended to national security prohibitions – HELD - The goods were not imported in complete knocked-down or semi-knocked-down condition to constitute a prohibited import of drones, as the components were imported in uneven numbers through multiple bills of entry by two separate entities controlled by the same person. The Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta & Brothers, had explained the meaning of "completely knocked-down condition" as made or constructed so as to be capable of being knock-down or taken apart as for transportation in parts ready to be assembled and that the General Rules of Interpretation cannot be used to interpret the Foreign Trade Policy - The appellants were registered as authorized drone manufacturers supplying to the Indian defence and security agencies, and thus, the grounds of national security and public safety relied upon by the Commissioner are not tenable. Further, the Commissioner's reliance on the CBIC Circular No. 35/2017-Customs is invalid, as the Delhi High Court had declared the relevant part of the circular as ultra vires the Customs Act - The Commissioner is directed to provisionally release the seized goods upon execution of an indemnity bond and surety bond by the appellants - The appeals are allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page