IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH M/s.S.K.Enterprises D.No.39-4-15, Murali Nagar Sector 4, Visakhapatnam 530 007 Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Datti Sarathkumar .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Customs Chennai II Import Commissionerate Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001

2.The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5)

Chennai II Import Commissionerate Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5)

Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001 .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to forthwith release the various models of Secondhand Highly Specialized Equipment namely used Digital Multifunction Print, Copying & Scanning Machines, numbering 109 units imported by the petitioner under Bill of Entry No.5486811 dated 04.11.2025, provisionally under Section 110A of the Customs Act.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Viswanathan For Respondents : Mr.Nalinidhar Central Government Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing respondents to release various models of secondhand highly specialised equipment, viz., used Digital Multifunction Print, Copying and Scanning machines, provisionally under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Heard Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Nalinidhar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that they have imported a consignment of secondhand highly specialised equipments. Those machines were also subjected to examination by the Customs by engaging DGFT approved Chartered Engineer.

They have also given the report certificate to the Customs Officer In-charge. 4. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that the respondents proceeded to forfeit those goods in spite of the report of the approved Chartered Engineer.

5. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in a batch of writ Petitions in W.P.No.29418 of

2024 etc. batch dated 10.07.2025. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:-

"29. A plea has also been taken by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change that MFDs will fall under “other wastes” as defined under Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (in short “HOW Rules”), that was framed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in 2016, and therefore, MFDs are restricted items, which require prior permission from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

The said Rules will not affect the provisional release of the MFDs which have been sought in these writ petitions for the following reasons:-

(a) Rule 3(23) of the HOW Rules has defined “other wastes”, as per which, the wastes specified in Part B and D of Schedule III for import or export would include all such wastes generated indigenously within the country.

(b) Rule 13(2) of the HOW Rules also states that for the import of other wastes listed in Part D of Schedule III, the importer shall not require the permission of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The only requirement of the importer under Rule 13(2) of the HOW Rules is that the importer should file certain documents that are enumerated in Schedule VIII to the Customs Authorities at the time of import.

(c) The petitioners have categorically contended that they have fulfilled this requirement, as, according to them, all the documents enumerated under serial No.4(j) of Schedule VIII, wherever applicable, have been filed by them, and in fact, if required, the production of applicable documents by the petitioners and the verification of the same by the Customs Department can be made as one of the conditions for the grant of provisi