Madras High Court
M/S.S.J.Impex vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs ... on 20 November, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.45003 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.45003 of 2025
M/s.S.J.Impex
Old No.184/9, New No.14, 2nd Floor
Jaya Nagar Main Road, Jaya Nagar
Thiruvallur District 602 001
Rep. by its Partner Mr.Rayasam Gopal Jayakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Chennai III Preventive Commissionerate
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai - 600 001
2.The Addl. Commissioner of Customs (SEZ-FTWZ)
Chennai III Preventive Commissionerate
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House, Chennai 600 001
3.The Additional Director General
DRI Headquarters, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Plot No.11-B, Institutional Area
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070
4.The Deputy Director (CI)
1/ 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
W.P.No.45003 of 2025
DRI Headquarters, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Plot No.11-B, Institutional Area
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070
5.The Inquiry Officer/SIO
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
7th Floor, Drum Shaped Building, I.P.Bhawan
I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110 002 .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to permit the
petitioner to re-export the goods provisionally viz.610 packages of Cotton Knitted
Fabric Yarn of Different Colours which was originally imported vide Bill of Lading
No.A33EX90696 and the filing of Bill of Entry No.7799376 dated 15.01.2025 in
terms of various judicial pronouncements rendered by various Hon’ble High
Courts and also this jurisdiction High Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Baskaran
For RR1 & 2 : Mr.T.Nalinidhar
Central Govt. Standing Counsel
For RR3 to 5 : Mr.H.Siddharth & Ms.Vaitheswari
Standing Counsel
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.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
610 packages of Cotton Knitted Fabric Yarn of Different Colours which was
originally imported vide Bill of Lading No.A33EX90696 and Bill of Entry
No.7799376 dated 15.01.2025.
2.The case of the petitioner is that they Cotton Knitted Fabric Yarn of
Different Colours from China. These goods were shipped from M/s.Changxing
Guanfeng Silk Co. Ltd., China through invoice dated 25.12.2024 and filed
warehousing Bill of Entry dated 15.01.2025 for SEZ import Z type and claimed for
clearance of the goods.
3.The investigation authorities informed the petitioner that 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
seized under seizure memo dated 28.06.2025 stating that all the goods were found
to be misclassified 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, 1962.
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
the present writ petition came to be filed before this 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 07.10.2025 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
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.
No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed."
7.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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
No costs.
20.11.2025
gya
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
To
1.The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Chennai III Preventive Commissionerate
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai - 600 001
2.The Addl. Commissioner of Customs (SEZ-FTWZ)
Chennai III Preventive Commissionerate
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House, Chennai 600 001
3.The Additional Director General
DRI Headquarters, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Plot No.11-B, Institutional Area
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070
4.The Deputy Director (CI)
DRI Headquarters, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Plot No.11-B, Institutional Area
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070
5.The Inquiry Officer/SIO
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
7th Floor, Drum Shaped Building, I.P.Bhawan
I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110 002
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gya
20.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
