Madras High Court
M/S.Krishna Fashion Studio vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Writ Petition No.44221 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.44221 of 2025
M/s.Krishna Fashion Studio,
represented by its Mr.Vikram Yadav (Proprietor),
B1 A-703, S.N.301-1021 Subhash Nagar,
Village Road, Bhandup West Mumbai,
Mumbai City, Maharashtra. .... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-III),
Preventive Commissionerate,
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai - 600 001.
2.The Senior Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (HQ),
7th Floor, Drum Shaped Building,
I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. .... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein
to permit the petitioner to re-export the goods provisionally viz., 27866
KGS (1338 Bales) of “Cotton Knitted Fabric Yarn of Different Colours”
goods by Bill of Entry No.7751991 dated 13.01.2025 and seized vide
Seizure Memo bearing No.F.No.DRI/CI/ENQ/133/2025-CI-O/o DG-DRI-
HQ-DELHI/1949 dated 16.06.2025.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 03:17:22 pm )
Writ Petition No.44221 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Appaswamee
For Respondents : Mr.T.Nalinidhar,
Standing Counsel [R1]
Mr.S.T.Bharath Gowtham
Senior Standing Counsel [R2]
*****
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to re-
export the goods viz., 27866 KGS (1338 Bales) of “Cotton Knitted Fabric
Yarn of Different Colours” goods by Bill of Entry No.7751991 dated
13.01.2025 and seized vide Seizure Memo bearing
No.F.No.DRI/CI/ENQ/133/2025-CI-O/o DG-DRI-HQ-DELHI/1949 dated
16.06.2025.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they imported Cotton Knitted
Fabric from China. These goods were shipped from M/s.Grand Bright
Asia HK Limited, China, through invoice dated 22.12.2024 and filed
warehousing bill of entry dated 13.01.2025 for SEZ import Z-type and
claimed for clearance of the goods.
3. The investigation authorities informed the petitioner that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 03:17:22 pm )
Writ Petition No.44221 of 2025
investigation is being done and later, it was found that the goods declared
under CTH 60062300 and the same has been classified under different
CTH. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that the samples were taken
and it has been sent to CRCL, New Delhi, for testing and thereafter, the
goods have been detained. The goods were seized under seizure memo
dated 16.06.2025 stating that all the goods were found to be mis-classified
on the basis of CRCL test report and it is further stated that the CTH
ascertained that the goods have been misclassified and different CTH have
been ascertained on the basis of the CRCL test report.
4. The petitioner was thereafter issued with summons for
appearance before the investigating officer at New Delhi. The petitioner
also attended the enquiry. The intelligence officer of DRI, informed that
since the goods imported was found to be misclassified, the goods are
liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is long delay in the
release of the goods and therefore, the petitioner is seeking for re-export of
the goods. However, no decision has been taken till date and it is under
these circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 03:17:22 pm )
Writ Petition No.44221 of 2025
Court.
6. The issue involved in the present writ petition has already been
dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.33723 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025 and
the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
"7. Section 110 of the Act deals with seizure of goods.
Section 111 deals with confiscation of improperly imported
goods.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
the case in hand, at best, the goods may fall under Section 111(m)
of the Act and that even in such an event, Section 125 gives an
option to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation, which will be
decided after adjudication.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Siemens Ltd.Vs. Collector of Customs [reported in 1999 (113)
ELT 776].
10. By relying upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order in
the case of Sankar Pandi Vs. Union of India [reported in 2002
(141) ELT 635] wherein it was held that the petitioner therein
was entitled to re-export the articles in question and that it was
necessary for him to pay retention fine as imposed by the
Authorities. This Court ultimately held that at best, penalty could
be imposed. This Court also reduced the penalty and a direction
was given to the petitioner therein to pay the reduced penalty.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to
the notice of this Court a Division Bench judgment of the
Madurai Bench of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of
Customs (Imports), Tuticorin Vs. Mahadev Enterprises
[reported in 2023 (3) CENTAX 8] wherein this Court permitted
the re-export of goods after executing a bond to cover the value
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 03:17:22 pm )
Writ Petition No.44221 of 2025
of the goods pending adjudication.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further brought
to the notice of this Court the other views taken by different High
Courts wherein a bank guarantee can be directed to be executed
for some percentage of the customs duty that may be leviable on
the re-determined value of the goods.
13. In the case in hand, the investigation has already been
completed and based on the CRCL test report, it is alleged that
there was a misclassification of the goods and that the goods were
undervalued. This may result in confiscation under Section 111 of
the Act and ultimately, the Adjudicating Authority can also give
an option to the petitioner to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation.
14. The crux of the issue is as to whether the goods will
have to remain in India or the petitioner can be permitted to re-
export the goods to the supplier at China since the supplier had
also agreed to take back the goods.
15. The logical end to the adjudication proceedings will
result in directing the petitioner to pay the fine/penalty and
differential duty. For this purpose, it is not necessary to retain the
goods in India. Therefore, to strike a balance, considering the fact
that the goods are lying in India from January 2025, certain
conditions can be imposed on the petitioner and on fulfilment of
the conditions so imposed, the petitioner can be permitted to re-
export the goods. This view has been taken by this Court and
other High Courts while granting such a relief.
16. In the light of the above discussions, the writ petition
is disposed of in the following terms :
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for
the total value of the differential duty payable by
them;
(ii) The petitioner shall furnish a bank
guarantee equivalent to 20% of the re-determined
value; and
(iii) On the petitioner fulfilling the above
two conditions, they shall be permitted to re-export
the goods within a period of 12 days from the date
of compliance of the above conditions as imposed
by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 03:17:22 pm )
Writ Petition No.44221 of 2025
No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed."
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gm
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in the following
terms :
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond
for the total value of the differential duty
payable by them;
(ii) The petitioner shall furnish a bank
guarantee equivalent to 20% of the re-
determined value; and
(iii) On the petitioner fulfilling the above
two conditions, they shall be permitted to re-
export the goods within a period of twelve (12)
days from the date of compliance of the above
conditions as imposed by this Court.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.11.2025
Index:yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation: yes/no
gm
To
1.The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-III),
Preventive Commissionerate,
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 03:17:22 pm )
Writ Petition No.44221 of 2025
2.The Senior Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (HQ),
7th Floor, Drum Shaped Building,
I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
Writ Petition No.44221 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 03:17:22 pm )
