V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Under an invoice dated 03.3.2014, the petitioner imported a consignment of 129 packages of old and used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines of various models for a declared value of USD 8201.6375 (CIF). They also filed a Bill of Entry dated 26.5.2014.

2. The Customs Approved Chartered Engineers examined the goods on arrival, in the presence of the Customs Officers and submitted an examination report on 4.6.2014. However, the appraised value was USD 24,932.77 (CIF).

3. The respondents did not permit the clearance, even after the report of the Chartered Engineers. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 16.6.2014 to the second respondent, informing him that he is prepared to accept the enhancement of value. But, the petitioner did not receive any response. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to assess and permit the clearance of 129 packages of the so called second hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines, forming the subject matter of the Bill of Entry dated 26.5.2014, upon payment of applicable duties of customs.

4. I have heard Mr. N. Viswanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, issued a Foreign Trade Policy with effect from 05.6.2012. Under Chapter II of the said Policy, it was stated that exports and imports shall be free, except when regulated and that such regulation would be as per the Foreign Trade Policy. Paragraph 2.7 of the said Policy stipulated that any goods/service, the export or import of which is restricted, may be exported or imported only in accordance with an authorisation/permission/licence or in accordance with the procedure prescribed in a Notification/public notice issued in this regard.

6. Insofar as the second hand goods are concerned, Paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, prior to its amendment, stipulated that Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines are restricted items and that they will be allowed to be imported only as per the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy.

7. With effect from 28.02.2013, the Central Government issued an amendment to Paragraph 2.17, vide Notification No. 35 (RE-2012)/2009-2014. Insofar as the second hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines are concerned, the amended Notification made them restricted goods importable only as against authorisation.

8. It appears that the petitioner made an application on 27.8.2013 seeking permission for the import of used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines. The request of the petitioner was placed before the Export Facilitation Committee, in a meeting held on 19.12.2013 and the Committee decided to reject the case as per the recommendation of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion under the Office Memorandum dated 03.10.2013. The decision of the Export Facilitation Committee was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 03.01.2014. The only reason stated in the said communication for the rejection of the request of the petitioner was that the second hand equipment would become obsolete/junk very fast and that the disposal of such junk equipment would pollute the environment.

9. But, despite such a rejection order communicated on 03.01.2014, the petitioner appears to have raised an invoice on 03.3.2014 and filed a Bill of Entry on 26.5.2014. According to the petitioner, they had placed orders much before the rejection of their request and that those items were kept for the raising of invoice and for transhipment at the Foreign Port before the rejection order. Hence, it is claimed that the petitioner should be allowed to clear the goods.

10. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions, I should take note of one subsequent developme