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
| 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
The amended Medical Textiles QCO applies to both manufacturers and importers, entitling the petitioner as an MSME to benefit from extended deadlines for compliance.
(1) Personal interests of importers who made improper imports are pitted against interests of national economy and more particularly, interests of farmers. Imposition of penalty on such importers is ....
The classification of imported goods as freely importable must align with prior judicial interpretations to ensure consistency and fairness in customs regulations.
Provisional release of detained goods under the Customs Act is justified when prior rulings support the import classification, enabling access to avoid hardship during pending investigations.
The right under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act for unconditional release of goods is absolute and cannot be curtailed or prevented by the Department.
Cosmetics imported without regulatory license are prohibited goods upon entering territorial waters, ineligible for warehousing or re-export, and liable to seizure and confiscation under Customs Act.
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 124 of the Customs Act renders confiscation orders invalid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.