Madras High Court
M/S.Jai Enterprises vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs ... on 26 November, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.45936 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.45936 of 2025
AND
W.M.P.No.51228 of 2025
M/s.Jai Enterprises
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Jeevan Kumar
TS No.84/2A, 2nd Portion
Ammal Eari Road, 6th Street
Dadagapatti, Salem 636 006
Tamil Nadu .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Chennai-III),
(Preventive)
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2.The Intelligence Officer DRI (Hqrs.)
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence
7th Floor, Drum Shaped Building, I.P. Bhawan,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110 002.
3.The Special Officer, FTWZ
M/s.NDR Infrastructure Private Limited,
Nandiambakkam, Ponneri Taluk, Chennai - 600 120.
4.The Additional Commissoner Of Customs (NDR-FTWZ)
O/o.The Principal Commissioner Of Customs,
Preventive Commissionerate, Custom House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
.. Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
W.P.No.45936 of 2025
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 viz., 202700 SQM., of fusible interlining textile
coated fabrics imported vide Bill of Entry No.7806750, dated 15.01.2025 and Bill
of Lading No.129E512401.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Jayaraj
For RR1 and 4 : 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., 202700 SQM., of fusible interlining textile coated fabrics imported vide Bill
of Entry No.7806750, dated 15.01.2025 and Bill of Lading No.129E512401.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they imported fusible interlining textile
coated fabrics from China. These goods were shipped from M/s.Chang Xing
Letian Textile Co. Ltd., China through invoice dated 20.12.2024 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 59039090
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
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 26.05.2025 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,
the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
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.
No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed.
26.11.2025
gya (1/6)
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
To
1. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Chennai-III),
(Preventive)
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2.The Intelligence Officer DRI (Hqrs.)
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence
7th Floor, Drum Shaped Building, I.P. Bhawan,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110 002.
3.The Special Officer, FTWZ
M/s.NDR Infrastructure Private Limited,
Nandiambakkam, Ponneri Taluk, Chennai - 600 120.
4.The Additional Commissoner Of Customs (NDR-FTWZ)
O/o.The Principal Commissioner Of Customs,
Preventive Commissionerate, Custom House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gya
26.11.2025
(1/6)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
