Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers the adjudicating authority to provisionally release seized goods regardless of whether they are categorized as 'prohibited' by executive instruction or deeming provisions, as such instructions cannot override the statutory power of the Act.

P. ANJANI KUMAR:

M/s Global Copier System, the appellant-importer challenges the impugned order dated 21.01.2026, upholding the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana rejecting the request of the appellant-importer for provisional release of 230 nos. of second-hand Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) Digital Multi-Function Print and Copying Machines imported by them.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported 230 nos. of second-hand Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) Digital Multi-Function Print and Copying Machines, valued at Rs.40,17,969/-, classifiable under CTE 84333100 and filed a Bill of Entry No.3552599 dated 29.07.2025 for clearance of the same. During the examination on first-check basis, it was observed that the appellant did not have an import authorization issued by DGFT and the registration with Bureau of Indian Standards. Chartered Engineer, who examined the cargo reported that the impugned goods were multi-functional devices that combines several functions into one device and are not covered under HSE. The impugned goods were seized on 14.08.2025 on the reasonable belief that they are liable for confiscation. The appellants requested for provisional release of the impugned goods vide letter dated 15.08.2025, which was rejected by the original authority vide order dated 15.09.2025. The order of the original authority was upheld by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri Saurabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellants, assisted by Ms. Muskaan Gupta and Ms. Tanya Kumar submits that:

• The CRO 2012 refers to prohibition for import of goods without compliance to the Registration with BIS; the impugned goods having been specifically exempted (exempting HSE) are not subject to registration with the BIS.

• For the purpose of import and classification the same is governed by the ITC HS which specifically provides that the import of the said goods is “Freely importable” as against the specified goods which require BIS registration.

• The local CE has not given any reasons for not agreeing with the description given by the Foreign Chartered Engineer who had specified the classification and value of goods at the time of export.

• Similar goods have been ordered to be cleared by the respective ports upon intervention by the hon’ble High Court duly affirmed by the hon’ble Supreme Court.

• The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground itself that the Respondent has failed to deal with the contentions raised at the time of personal hearing and further even the judgments referred in the show cause notice have to be dealt in judicious manner.

4. Learned Counsel further submits that Para 2.31 of Foreign Trade Policy 2023 categorizes “notified electronics/ IT goods as restricted”; the impugned order does not cite any notification declaring the impugned goods falling under CTE 84433100 as absolutely prohibited per se; mere requirement of an authorization or registration with BIS does not make the goods prohibited per se; Section 110A empowers provisional release pending adjudication; there is no bar as per the jurisprudence evolved on the subject on the provisional release of the goods; the original order or the impugned order neither alleged nor record any findings on the fraud, concealment etc. by the appellants. He relies on the following cases:

• M/s Akshaya Copier Solutions – Telangana High Court order dated 20.01.2026 in W.P. No.1516 of 2026.

• M/s Glamex – Madras High Court order dated 01.09.2025 in W.P. No. 32963 o