Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 124 of the Customs Act renders confiscation orders invalid.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of wholesale/distribution and manufacturing of various kinds of consumer electronics.

2. As part of its business, the petitioner used to import goods from abroad. The petitioner is also a small enterprise duly registered under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act , 2006, as evidenced by Ext.P1 Udyam Registration. In the ordinary course of business, the petitioner imported 1720 units of Flashlights which according to the petitioner fell under the subheading 851310 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. Ext.P2 is the shipping documents in relation to the same. On 18.09.2025, the petitioner filed a bill of entry with the Customs, seeking clearance of the consignment, supported by the necessary documents including invoice, airway bill and the license issued by the 3^rd respondent Bureau of Indian Standards. Ext.P3 is the bill of entry and Ext.P4 is the license issued by the 3^rd respondent.

3. However, despite the payment of duty as declared by the petitioner in the bill of entry, the goods were not released by the Customs authorities on the reason that, the product does not conforms to the standards prescribed in Flashlight Quality Control Order 2025 notified on 21.01.2025. In such circumstances, as there was delay in clearing the goods, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking clearance of the goods and also for declaring that the goods are not covered by the Flashlight Quality Control Order. The petitioner also also sought the waiver or mitigation of undue demurrage charges.

4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Joint Commissioner of Customs issued order No.325/2025-26 on 28.10.2025, ordering confiscation of the goods and imposing a redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 112(a), and permitting only re-export. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner amended the writ petition by producing the documents as Ext.P6. As per the releifs sought in the amended writ petition, the petitioner also seeks to challenge Ext.P6 order as well.

5. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents 1 and 2 defending the findings entered in Ext.P6.

The 3^rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit.

6. I have heard Sri.Aswin Gopakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.Gireeshkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. Manoj Ramaswamy the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

7. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Ext.P6 was issued without following the statutory stipulations contained in Section 124 of the Customs Act , which contemplates for a show cause notice before issuing an order of confiscation. On going through Ext.P6 order, I find that, evidently, no show cause notice as contemplated under Section 124 of the Act was issued to the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to submit its objection to the proposal for confiscation. It is to be noted that Section 124 (a) specifically provides for notice in writing with the prior approval of the officer of the Customs not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Customs, informing the person concerned, of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty. Sub-section (b) of Section 124 contemplates for giving an opportunity to the person concerned for making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned