Madras High Court
M/S.Hi Rexine vs The Deputy Director on 2 June, 2025
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.No.15944 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.15944 of 2025
M/s.HI Rexine,
Rep. By its Proprietor Mr.Sanjay Kumar,
Chennai. .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Deputy Director,
DRI (Headquarters),
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi – 110 002.
2.The Intelligence Officer,
DRI (Headquarters),
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi – 110 002.
3.The Asst./Deputy Director,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.
4.The Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Gr.2),
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House,
Chennai – 1.
5.The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr.2),
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House,
Chennai – 1. .. Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
W.P.No.15944 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the
respondents to provisionally release the goods in terms of Section 110A
of the Customs Act, being a Live Consignment covered under Bill of
Entry 7882362, dated 20.01.2025 in terms of the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Navshakti Industries –
2011 (269) ELT (A-146) (SC), r/w. The Customs (Provisional Duty
Assessment) Regulations, 1963, and also in terms of the past
contemporaneous clearance of the very same goods, imported by the
petitioner concern, which goods admittedly came to be assessed and
cleared by proper officer of customs and also by considering the
representation of the petitioner dated 12.03.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Baskaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Santhanaraman, SSC
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus seeking for a
direction to the respondents to provisionally release the goods pertaining
to Bill of Entry No.7882362, dated 20.01.2025, in terms of Section 110A
of the Customs Act, 1962, as well as the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, Vs.
Navshakti Industries Pvt Ltd. [2011 (269) ELT A146(SC)].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
2. Eventhough a positive direction has been sought for by the
petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit on
instructions that the petitioner will be satisfied if the respondents
consider the representation of the petitioner seeking for provisional
release of the imported goods under Bill of Entry No.7882362, dated
20.01.2025, on merits and in accordance with law, in the light of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navshakti's case
(cited supra).
3. Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, he would submit that
the representation given by the petitioner, which has been enclosed in the
typed set of papers, is not for provisional release of the imported goods
as per the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, but, it is
for the final assessment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner will submit a fresh representation within a time frame to be
fixed by this Court, provided a direction is issued to the respondents to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
consider the said representation on merits and in accordance with law in
the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Navshakti's case (cited supra) within a time frame to be fixed by this
Court. In the said judgment, a direction was issued to the customs
authorities to provisionally release the goods provided the petitioner
therein pays 30% differential duty. He would further submit that a
similar yardstick may be applied to the case of the petitioner herein as
well.
5. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the
petitioner's contention. It is for the respondents to decide the same on
merits and in accordance with law after giving due consideration to the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in Navshakti Industries Pvt Ltd Vs.
Commission of Customs, Delhi [2011 (267) ELT 483 (Del)], which was
on appeal confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navshakti's case
(cited supra).
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the petitioner to
submit a fresh representation to the respondents seeking for provisional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
release of the imported goods imported under Bill of Entry No.7882362,
dated 20.01.2025, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. On receipt of the said representation from the
petitioner, the respondents shall pass final orders on merits and in
accordance with law, after giving due consideration to the judgment
rendered by the Delhi High Court in Navshakti Industries Pvt Ltd Vs.
Commission of Customs, Delhi [2011 (267) ELT 483 (Del)], which was
on appeal confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navshakti's case
(cited supra), and also after giving due consideration to the Regulation 2
of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011, within
a period of four weeks thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
No Costs.
02.06.2025
Index: yes/no
Neutral citation: yes/no
speaking/non-speaking
rkm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.
rkm
To
1.The Deputy Director,
DRI (Headquarters),
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi – 110 002.
2.The Intelligence Officer,
DRI (Headquarters),
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi – 110 002.
3.The Asst./Deputy Director,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.
4.The Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Gr.2),
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House,
Chennai – 1.
5.The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr.2),
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House,
Chennai – 1.
02.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
