Madras High Court
M/S.Changing Seasons vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs ... on 7 October, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Writ Petition No.37744 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.37744 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.42209 of 2025
M/s.Changing Seasons,
represented by its Proprietor Mr.Huzaifa Mirza,
Good Shepherd Church 223, Plot No.22,
Dharavi Main Road,
Mumbai - 400 017. .... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-III),
Preventive Commissionerate,
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai - 600 001.
2.The Additional Director General,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
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 seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents
herein to permit the petitioner to re-export the goods viz., 804 Bales of
Textile Fabric coated with Plastics imported vide Bill of Entry
No.7705755, dated 10.01.2025 and Bill of Lading No.031E615575.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Jayaraj
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 02:32:21 pm )
Writ Petition No.37744 of 2025
For Respondents : Mr.K.Mohanamurali
Senior Panel 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., 804 Bales of Textile Fabric coated with Plastics
imported vide Bill of Entry No.7705755, dated 10.01.2025 and Bill of
Lading No.031E615575.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they imported Textile
Fabric Coated with Plastics from China. These goods were shipped from
M/s.Shaoxing Keqiao Hailong Textile Co. Ltd., China through invoice
dated 17.12.2024 and filed warehousing bill of entry dated 10.01.2025 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 02:32:21 pm )
Writ Petition No.37744 of 2025
goods have been detained. The goods were seized under seizure memo
dated 04.04.2025 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 02:32:21 pm )
Writ Petition No.37744 of 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 02:32:21 pm )
Writ Petition No.37744 of 2025
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 02:32:21 pm )
Writ Petition No.37744 of 2025
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.
07.10.2025
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: 08/10/2025 02:32:21 pm )
Writ Petition No.37744 of 2025
2.The Additional Director General,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
7th Floor, Drum Shaped Building,
I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 02:32:21 pm )
Writ Petition No.37744 of 2025
Writ Petition No.37744 of 2025
07.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 02:32:21 pm )
