[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Senthil Kumar vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs on 8 April, 2026
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
WP No. 12960 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
WP No. 12960 of 2026
and WMP Nos.14161 and 14163 of 2026
Senthil Kumar
S/o.Thiyagarajan,
No.5/30, VOC Street,
Mondiamman Nagar,
Padyanallur, Red Hills,
Chennai-600 052
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Adjudication-AIR
Chennai I commissionerate,
Anna International Airport,
New Customs House,
Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027.
2. The Additional Director
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Chennai Zonal unit,
No.27, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to the
impugned order in Original No.(De-Novo) 300/ 2025-26/
COMMISSIONERATE-I dated 11.02.2026 passed by the 1st respondent herein
insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal, unjust
and in violation of principles of natural justice
__________
Page1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 12960 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel
Mr.K.Gopal
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Harikrishna, Standing Counsel for R1
Mr.S.T.Bharath Gowtham,
Senior Standing Counsel for R2
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
11.02.2026, inter alia on the following grounds:
(a) The impugned order is based on a statement recorded from one
Basheer Ahmed a passenger who arrived from Dubai. After reaching
home, 13 kilograms of Gold were recovered from his kneecap and
waist. While the said Basheer Ahmed had apparently in his statement
made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitted to have
imported 13 kgs of gold, however next day retracted the said
statement.
(b) He would submit that impugned order relies upon Call Data records
which, according to him, ought to have been in compliance with
procedure contemplated under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. He
__________
Page2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would submit that Section 138C of the Customs Act is pari-materia
with Section 65B of Evidence Act. Therefore, question would arise in
the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act,
whether the said material could be taken on record. He would also
point out that while strict rules of evidence may not be applicable,
when a specific provision has been incorporated. it would have to be
complied with in other words, where the statute prescribes the method
and manner, it ought to be complied with strictly.
(c) He would submit that cell phones are not even registered in the name
of the petitioners. There is nothing on record to indicate that any
enquiry was made with the ostensible/apparent owner of the cell
phone/number.
(d) Finally he would submit that a request to cross examine Basheer
Ahmed and Investigating Officer was rejected
3. Issue whether cross examination of co-noticee/Investigating
Officer is permissible, is pending consideration before this Court in W.P.
No.4918 of 2025 and other cases. Hence the present Writ Petition be tagged
along with W.P.No.4918 of 2025 and other cases.
__________
Page3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Prima facie case made out, there shall be an order of interim stay of
the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 till then.
5. Post on 10.04.2026.
08-04-2026
jv
To
1. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Adjudication-AIR
Chennai I commissionerate,
Anna International Airport,
New Customs House,
Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027.
2. The Additional Director
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Chennai Zonal unit,
No.27, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
__________
Page4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
jv
08-04-2026
__________
Page5 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
