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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH
M/S.ZEEK GROUP INTERNATIONAL – Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (CHENNAI-III – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND WMP NO. 50567 OF 2025 & WMP NO. 50568 OF 2025 M/s.Zeek Group International, Rep., By Its Partner Mr.Zeeshan Khan, 2nd Floor, Hina Tower, Jawahar Colony, Kampoo, Gwalior 474 001.

Madhya Pradesh Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-III) (Preventive), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001

2.The Intelligence Officer, DRI (Hqrs.), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 7th Floor, Drum Shaped Building, I.P Bhavan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi

3.The Additional Commissioner of Customs (NDR-FTWZ), O/o The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Preventive Commissionerate, Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001

4.The Special Officer, FTWZ M/s.NDR Infrastructure Private Limited, Nandiambakkam, Ponneri Taluk, Chennai 600 120 Respondent(s)

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in F.No.DRI/HQ-CI/B CELL/50D/ENQ-1/2025/1340, dated 05.05.2025, passed by the 1st Respondent herein in petitioner’s Bill of Entry No.7794160, dated 15.01.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unfair, un-reasonable, violation of principles of natural justice and perverse insofar as ordering Provisional Release in adhering to the Provisions provided under Section 110A of the Customs Act read with the Guidelines issued under Board Circular No.35/2017-Customs, dated 16.08.2017 which has been held as void and unenforceable at law by Honble Division Bench of Delhi High Court and direct the 2nd respondent herein to release the goods viz., 93955.56 SQM., of PVC Coated Fabrics imported vide Bill of Entry No.7794160, dated 15.01.2025, totally valued at USD 11,274.67 on execution of Simple Bond for the Differential Duty on the re-determined value and also on execution of Simple Bond towards the Adjudication levies if any.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.K. Jayaraj For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Sivaraman Junior Panel Counsel for R1 and R3 Mr.H.Siddarth Standing Counsel for R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the provisional release order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to release the goods on execution of Simple Bond for the Differential Duty on the re-determined value and also on execution of Simple Bond towards the adjudication levies, if any.

2. Heard Mr.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Mr.B.Sivaraman, learned Junior Panel Counsel for respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.H.Siddarth, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. The petitioner had placed order with a supplier in China for supply of PVC Coated fabrics and one of the consignments reached the Chennai Port and the same was also taken to the SEZ Ware House in Nandiambakkam, Chennai. The petitioner had imported 93955.56 SQM of PVC Coated fabrics from China, valued at USD 11,274.67. The goods were shipped under invoice dated 28.12.2024 and the Bill of Entry was filed dated 15.01.2025 and the petitioner claim for clearance of the goods.

4. The petitioner had submitted all the necessary documents and also filed the Bill of Entry and sought for the clearance of the goods by declaring the value of the goods. The petitioner requested further release of the goods.

5. The petitioner would submit that on an earlier occasion they had imported similar goods and got necessary clearance from the office of the second respondent and on that pretext, he requested for release of the goods. Thereafter, the authorities had de-stuffed the goods and conducted examination of the goods. Subsequently, the samples were sent for testing. The authorities had informed the petitioner that the release of the goods would be subject to the test result of the sample.

6. At this juncture, the petitioner received the Seizure Memo dated

07.04.2025, from the 2nd respondent stating that as per the CRCL Test Repor

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