The Court affirmed the necessity to pursue statutory remedies for disputes originating from administrative customs actions, underlined by the principle of reasonable belief and statutory adjudication.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by an importer, being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, by detaining the goods imported by the petitioner under the provisions of the Customs Act , 1962, alleging misclassification of the goods.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is an importer and trader of the product by name “NATA DE COCO” which is an edible product obtained by cooking and fermentation of coconut water and coconut milk. Exhibits P1 to P4 are the bills of the entries in respect of the import made by the petitioner. The said import was made from Viatnam and as per the invoices and the bill of entries the classification of the goods was made under the Customs Tariff Act, (CTH) 2007 9990. According to the petitioner this is the classification made by the exporting country and in Ext.P17 Indian Coconut Journal published in December, 2017 by the Ministry of Agriculture also, the classification of the said product is 2007 9990. Thus, according to the petitioner, the petitioner had correctly classified the goods and furnished the documents and declarations in this regard.

3. However, the officer attached to the 2^nd respondent detained the goods and issued Ext.P20 seizure memorandum stating that he has reason to believe that the goods are misdeclared. On making a request for provisional release of the goods, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.21 provisional release order requiring the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.5,50,768/- being the value of the seized goods and also to furnish a bank guarantee or cash deposit in favour of the Commissioner of Customs for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. As against Ext.P21, the petitioner submitted Ext.P22 request for modifying the provisional release order, but the same was rejected as per Ext.P23. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances challenging Ext.P20 seizure memo and Ext.P21 provisional release order. A consequential direction was also sought to release the goods without insisting for security by way of bank guarantee. A further direction was sought to the respondents to clear future consignments of the petitioner on execution of bond, without insisting for security by way of bank guarantee/cash deposits/other security.

4. Initially, a statement was filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner and also denying the averments contained in the writ petition. It was averred in the said statement that, on examining the goods, some doubts arose with regard to the classification of the goods and in such circumstances, invoking the powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act , the officer concerned, upon reaching a reasonable belief as to the misclassification, Ext.P20 memo was issued. It was also averred that, now an investigation is pending and if necessary, a show cause notice would be issued to the petitioner as per Section 124 of the .

5. Later, a counter affidavit was submitted by the respondents further explaining the steps taken by the respondents. Along with the said counter affidavit, the respondent produced Ext.R1(b) communication, wherein the petitioner requested for release of the goods by agreeing to furnish a suitable bank guarantee as per the provisions of the Customs Act . According to the respondents, Ext.P21 was issued based on the same. It was further averred that, a show cause notice dated 28.10.2025 is already issued to the petitioner proposing to confiscate the goods as it was found that, the transaction falls under Section 111 (m) and (o) of the , 1962. Thus, it was contended that, the reliefs sought in this