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. 50569 OF 2025 & WMP NO. 50570 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/CI//ENQ/117/2025-CI-O/o DG-DRI-HQ-DELHI/1666, dated 26.05.2025, vide Seizure Memo passed by the 2nd Respondent herein in petitioners Bill of Entry No.7715037, dated 10.01.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unfair, un-reasonable, violation of principles of natural justice and perverse in sofar as intimating for provisional release of the goods in adhering to the Provisions provided under Section 110A of the Customs Act read with the guidelines issued through 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 respondents herein to release the goods viz., 80708.89 SQM., of PVC Coated Fabrics imported vide Bill of Entry No.7715037, dated 10.01.2025, totally valued at USD 9,685.07 for 80708.89 SQM., 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 Seizure Memo dated
26.05.2025 passed by the second respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents 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 consignment reached the Chennai Port and the same was also taken to the SEZ Ware House in Nandiampakkam, Chennai. The petitioner had imported 80708.89 SQM., of PVC Coated Fabrics from China, valued at total USD 9,685.07. The goods were shipped under invoice dated 19.12.2024 and the Bill of Entry was filed dated 10.01.2025 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 impugned seizure memo dated 28.05.
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.