Madras High Court
M/S.Rain Wing India Private Limited vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs ... on 21 November, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
1/13 WP No. 45363 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP No. 45363 of 2025
M/s.Rain Wing India Private Limited,
Plot No.48,Sector-29,
Part-2,Near Dainik Jagran,
Panipet, Haryana 132103,
Rep By Its Director
Mr.Sandesh Khurana
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Chennai III Preventive Commissionerate,
No.60,Rajaji Salai, Customs 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
2/13 WP No. 45363 of 2025
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence,
Plot No.11-B, Institutional Area,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070
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
Respondent(s)
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to
consider the case of the petitioner and to permit the re-export of the goods,
viz., 691 Rolls of “Polyster Knitted Fabric Coated with Polymer Based
Material”, which was originally imported vide Bill of Lading
No.NBAE24110107 and the filling of Bill of Entry No.7318108 dated
18.12.2024, in terms of various judicial pronouncements rendered by
various High Courts and also this jurisdiction High Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Baskaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
3/13 WP No. 45363 of 2025
For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Sivaraman
Junior Panel 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., 691 Rolls of “Polyster Knitted Fabric Coated with
Polymer Based Material”, which was originally imported vide Bill of
Lading No.NBAE24110107 and the filling of Bill of Entry No.7318108
dated 18.12.2024, in terms of various judicial pronouncements rendered by
various High Courts.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they imported PVC Coated
Fabrics from China. These goods were shipped from M/s.Haining JieYa
Textile Co., Ltd.,, China, through invoice dated 22.11.2024 and filed
warehousing bill of entry dated 18.12.2024 for SEZ import Z-type and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
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 60063200 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
10.06.2025 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
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
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 26.09.2025 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
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: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed."
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.
21-11-2025
(2/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
To
1. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Chennai III Preventive Commissionerate,
No.60,Rajaji Salai, Customs 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 110070
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: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
21-11-2025
(2/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:52:17 pm )
