SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J.
Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – II (Import) - Respondent
W.P.No.50475 of 2025
Decided On : 26-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran Assisted by Mr.Santhana Gopalan D & Mr.S.Ganesh Aravindh
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Guruprasad for Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel

The amended Medical Textiles QCO applies to both manufacturers and importers, entitling the petitioner as an MSME to benefit from extended deadlines for compliance.

Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2024 - The petitioner sought the release of imported goods subject to compliance with QCO regulations, which mandates BIS certification for sanitary products. The court highlighted that the order did not restrict benefits solely to manufacturers but applied to importers as well, provided they are MSME entities, affirming that the petitioner qualifies as such. (Paras 19, 21, 30)

(B) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 111(d), 125(1), and 112(a)(i) - The confiscation order was placed by customs due to violations regarding BIS standards. The petitioner contended compliance and the CESTAT offered a stay pending appeal. The court ruled in favor of procedural respect towards the CESTAT, directing compliance with its stay order, leading to the relief sought by the petitioner. (Paras 10, 26, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an importer of feminine hygiene products, faced confiscation of goods due to regulatory non-compliance with the Medical Textiles QCO, and sought relief via writ.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to relief as an MSME importer's benefits must align with statutory provisions, endorsing the CESTAT's stay order.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, as a trader and MSME, is entitled to benefits under the amended QCO.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the amended QCO applies to both manufacturers and importers, validating the petitioner's position as a small enterprise authorizing it to benefit from the extended deadlines.

Result: Writ petition allowed with conditions for release of goods.

Table of Content
1. petitioner imports sanitary products and seeks release under regulatory compliance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. confiscation order issued due to violations of qco regarding bis standards. (Para 6 , 9 , 12)
3. court clarifies that amended qco permits benefits for both importers and manufacturers. (Para 19 , 21 , 25)
4. court orders the release of goods subject to certain conditions. (Para 30)

ORDER :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

Heard Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran for the petitioner and Mr.K.Guruprasad for Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent.

Facts leading to the writ petition

2. The petitioner is an importer of feminine Hygiene products like Sanitary Napkins, Panty liners etc. The petitioner imports these products from suppliers in China. The suppliers manufacture these products using a technology which is unavailable in India. The petitioner is selling the products under the brand name “Plush”. The Chinese manufacturer has filed an application with the Bureau of Indian Standards (herein after referred to as ‘BIS’) under the Foreign Manufacturer Certification Scheme. The products manufactured by it fell under BIS schedule-A and have to answer the description BIS standard IS 5045:2019.

3. The petitioner imported the products, for which it seeks release of, on 29.03.2025 and 31.03.2025. The Bill of Entries for these imports were filed on the aforesaid dates.

4. An alert notice No.2 of 2025 dated 27.02.2025 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, the Custom House, Mundra. This notice stated a clarification had been sought from the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (hereinafter referred to as ‘DPIIT’) regarding the applicability of Quality Control Order (hereinafter referred to as ‘QCO’) on imports. DPIIT had informed that the relaxation granted in the QCOs in the form of extended time lines in the MSME does not apply to import. It was stated that the relaxation is meant for obtaining BIS license under Conformity Assessment Rules of BIS and that the restriction on imports is applicable to all enterprises including MSMEs, like the petitioner, from the date of QCO.

5. In the meantime, the goods of the petitioner had arrived in India. The petitioner made repeated representations and demanded that the goods be released. As no decision was taken, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20447 of 2025. It sought for release of the goods under the aforesaid Bill of Entries. By an order dated 27.06.2025, this Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to pass orders within a period of four weeks.

6. In compliance thereof, proceedings were initiated. The petitioner attended the enquiry and submitted his representation. By an order dated 22.08.2025, the Department ordered for confiscation of the goods invoking Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Bureau of Indian Standards Act of 2016. The order further directed the petitioner to re-export the goods and pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act , in lieu of, confiscation. Penalty was imposed to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act on the ground that the petitioner had imported the goods knowing that it was in violation of the BIS QCOs.

7. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner moved this court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.37033 of 2025. This Court entertained the writ petition and directed the respondent to go by way of a counter. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal under section 129(a)(i) of the Customs Act before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CESTAT’), Chennai and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

8. On the merits of the case, the respondent therein pleaded that the imported goods, namely, Sanitary Napkins and Panty Liners fell under Schedule-A of the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top