Madras High Court
M/S.Rijo Galaxy vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.44086 & 44087 of 2025
M/s.Rijo Galaxy
No.17A, Muthusa Street,
Seven Wells, Chennai - 600 001.
represented by its Proprietor
Mr.Susaimary Petitioner
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. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records connected
with the impugned Provisional Release Order dated 30.07.2025 in F.No.GEN/
ADJ/Misc/371/2025 issued by the second respondent herein and to quash the
same to the extent of condition specified at para 1 and 3 of the said impugned
Provisional Release order dated 30.07.2025, as arbitrary, onerous, illegal and
unconstitutional, for the purpose of granting provisional release of the seized
goods covered under Bill of Entry No.8288824 dated 11.02.2025 and
consequently to modify the above said condition for the purpose of provisional
release of the said goods in terms of various judicial pronouncements rendered
by various High Courts and also the Hon'ble Apex Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Baskaran
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:47 pm )
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
For Respondents : Ms.Anu Ganesan
Junior Panel Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
Provisional Release Order dated 30.07.2025 issued by the second respondent to
the extent of condition specified at para 1 and 3 of the said impugned
Provisional Release order dated 30.07.2025, for the purpose of granting
provisional release of the seized goods covered under Bill of Entry No.8288824
dated 11.02.2025 and consequently to modify the above said condition for the
purpose of provisional release of the said goods.
2. The petitioner had imported goods which are 'PVC Coated
Fabric' vide the subject bill of entry and the goods were moved to the Special
Economic Zone unit situated at Ponneri Taluk, Chennai. The petitioner had
approached the respondent for clearance of the goods from the Special
Economic Zone unit. The petitioner was informed that the DRI officials have
initiated investigation and only after obtaining the test report, a decision would
be taken for release of the goods. Accordingly, the DRI detained the goods.
Since the various representations given by the petitioner to the authorities for
provisional release of the goods evoked no response, the petitioner filed a writ
petition in W.P.No.15947 of 2025 seeking for a direction to the authorities to
consider their case for provisional release of goods and this Court, by order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:47 pm )
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
dated 02.06.2025, directed the authorities to pass final orders on the
representation submitted by the petitioner, in the light of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of M/s Navshakti Industries and also after giving due
consideration to Regulation 2 of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment)
Regulations, 2011, within a period of four weeks.
3. Pursuant to the above order, the respondent has issued the
impugned provisional release order dated 30.07.2025 directing the petitioner to
furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- and a bond equivalent to
the re-determined value of the goods, which is Rs.63,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the
same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the issue
involved in the present case is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by
this Court in W.P.No.32472 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025. The learned counsel
submitted that the conditions that were imposed by this Court in that order can
be applied to the petitioner also and the petitioner will abide by the same.
5. The learned Junior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents vehemently opposed the relief sought for by the petitioner, on the
ground that the authority has re-determined the value of the goods to the tune of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:47 pm )
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
Rs.63,00,000/- and if at all the petitioner wants the release of the goods, the
petitioner has to either pay the re-determined duty for the re-determined value
or furnish a bank guarantee as has been directed by the second respondent to the
tune of Rs.13,00,000/-. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the
impugned provisional release order that has been put to challenge in the present
writ petition does not warrant the interference of this Court.
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side and the materials available on record.
7. The second respondent has exercised jurisdiction under Section
110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The second respondent has taken into
consideration the re-determined value of the goods under the subject bill of
entry to the total tune of Rs.63,00,000/- and the petitioner is supposed to pay the
re-determined duty, which comes to Rs.13,00,000/-. It is stated that the matter
is at the stage of issuance of notice to the petitioner and the adjudication is
pending. Under such circumstances, this Court must only see as to whether the
conditions imposed by the second respondent in the impugned provisional
release order require the interference of this Court.
8. The above issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.32472 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:47 pm )
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
2025 and by order dated 18.09.2025, this Court held as follows:-
“12. This Court is not dealing with the merits of the case
since what has been put to challenge is the provisional
release order and that too questioning some of the onerous
conditions. While undertaking this exercise, it will suffice to
take note of some of the earlier orders passed by this Court.
One such order was passed in the case of Green Line Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-IV, reported in 2016
(340) E.L.T 140 (Mad). That was also a case, which
involved differential duty of non prohibited goods. Similar
conditions were imposed and the said writ petition was
disposed of by this Court in the following terms:
“8. In the light of the above discussions, the
Writ Petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
(i) The petitioner is directed to remit the entire
duty as assessed by them;
(ii) The petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the
differential duty which has been arrived at by the
Department as Rs. 22.72 lakhs;
(iii) The petitioner is directed to execute a bond
for the remaining amount to the satisfaction of the
respondents.
(iv) The petitioner shall execute an indemnity
bond stating that in the event of Shri.S.Ariya
raising any claim over the goods or concerning
the use of IEC code issued in favour of M/s. Green
Line, the petitioner Mr.Mohamed Kalith alone
would be fully responsible for the same and no
liability can be fastened on the respondent
Department and the indemnity bond should be
furnished in the form approved by the
respondents.”
13. This order of the learned Single Judge was
subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:47 pm )
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
this Court in W.A.No.1243 of 2016 dated 25.10.2016. It is
also relevant to take note of a Division Bench order of this
Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Others
vs. Sri Venkateshwara Paper Boards Rep.by its General
Manager Mr.L.Barath reported in 2022 (379) E.L.T 310
(Mad), which involved prohibited goods and the writ
petition was disposed of in the following terms:
“32. We have perused the order dated
29.12.2020 permitting provisional release of the
cargo, subject to the following conditions:
(a) execution of a bond for Rs.34,65,334/-,
(b) production of cash security/bank guarantee for
Rs. 12,12,867/- towards redemption fine and
penalty, and
(c) payment of duty of Rs. 9,43,411/-.
33.We find nothing unreasonable about
conditions (a) and (c), however condition (b) is
concerned directing the Importer to furnish Bank
guarantee/cash security towards redemption fine
and penalty would be harsh as the show-cause
notice is yet to be adjudicated. Therefore, we
modify the condition (b) alone by directing the
Importer to execute the bond for Rs. 12,12,867/-.
34. On compliance of the execution of the
bond for the amount mentioned in conditions (a)
and (b) supra and payment of duty as mentioned
in condition (c), the Revenue shall permit
provisional release of the cargo within seven (7)
days therefrom, which shall be subject to the
result of the adjudication of the show-cause
notice.”
14. In the case in hand, the goods that are involved are
Viscose Knitted Fabric, which according to the Department
has been misclassified and undervalued. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:47 pm )
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
Department is proceeding further with the adjudication
proceedings. Pending the same, the impugned provisional
release order has been passed.
15. The conditions that have been imposed in the
provisional release order are as follows:
Specific Conditions:
1. The importer shall file the DTA Bill of Entry
for provisional release for the re-determined value
and shall pay re-determined duty as mentioned in
seizure memo and / or NOC issued by the DRI, HQ,
New Delhi. The Bill of Entry shall be assessed in
view of pending investigation.
2. The importer shall execute a Bond for
Rs.91,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs only)
3. The importer shall furnish a Bank
Guarantee(BG) for Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Two Lakhs only)
16. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the grounds
raised in the writ petition and also taking into consideration
of the earlier orders passed by this Court, this Court is
inclined to modify the conditions imposed in the provisional
release order as follows:
a) The petitioner is directed to remit the entire duty as
declared by them.
b) The petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the
differential duty for the total value arrived at by the
Department at Rs.90,95,299.23/-
c) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:47 pm )
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
Rs.91,00,000/-(Rupees Ninety One Lakhs only) and
d) The petitioner shall also execute a bond for a sum
of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs only) instead
of Bank Guarantee. On compliance, the goods shall be
released by the respondents within a period of seven days
from the date of compliance of the conditions.”
9. The above yardstick can be applied in the present case also and
hence, this Court is inclined to modify the conditions imposed in the impugned
provisional release order issued by the respondents, as follows:-
a) The petitioner is directed to remit the entire duty as
declared by them;
b) The petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the
differential duty for the total value arrived at by the
Department to the tune of Rs.63,00,000/-;
c) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of
Rs.13,00,000/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) and
d) The petitioner shall also execute a bond for a sum
of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) instead of
Bank Guarantee. On compliance, the goods shall be released
by the second respondent within a period of seven (7) days
from the date of compliance of the conditions.
This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:47 pm )
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
16.10.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
gm
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.
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
gm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:47 pm )
Writ Petition No.39282 of 2025
Writ Petition No. 39282 of 2025
16.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:47 pm )
