IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.Nos.29973 & 41369 of 2025 M/s.Kalima Granites, Represented by its Partner Hameed Abdul Kader, Old No.180, New No.96, 2^nd Floor, Shop No.1 and 2, Prakasam Salai, Manady, Broadway, Chennai – 600 001. ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

2.The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, BRC-DBK, Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

3.The Assistant Commissioner (ARC), Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to Impugned Order-in-Original No.82384 of 2021 dated 27.03.2021 of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.1,05,000/- paid under TR-6 Challan in No.MCM26060775 dated 26.06.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail For Respondents : Mr.J.Harikrishna Standing Counsel *****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Order-

in-Original, dated 27.03.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Under the impugned Order-in-Original, the 2^nd respondent has confirmed the demand of Rs.12,98,588/- made against the petitioner in respect of the shipping bills, which are morefully disclosed in the impugned Order-in-Original. The 2^nd respondent has also imposed a penalty of Rs.64,000/- on the petitioner for non-submission of Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) for the subject shipping bills.

3. The petitioner has categorically contended before this Court that they did not receive any show cause notice and they did not receive any personal hearing notices from the respondents before passing of the impugned Order-in-Original. The petitioner also claims that they came to know about the impugned Order-in-Original only after their subsequent exports were stopped/delayed on account of non-payment of the amounts morefully described in the impugned Order-in-Original.

4. A counter has been filed by the respondents before this Court denying the contentions of the petitioner. They state that since the petitioner has received the impugned Order-in-Original, it is presumed that they have also received the personal hearing notices as well as the show cause notice sent by the respondents prior to the passing of the impugned Order-in-Original.

5. However, as seen from the impugned Order-in-Original, it is clear that the show cause notice as well as the personal hearing notices said to have been sent by the respondents to the petitioner, were returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement ‘left. The petitioner has also contended before this Court that the notices sent by the respondents were sent to the old address of the petitioner. A categorical statement has also been made by the petitioner that they did not receive the show cause notice as well as the personal hearing notices said to have been sent by the respondents. There is also no documentary evidence placed on record before this Court by the respondents to prove that the show cause notice as well as the personal hearing notices were in fact received by the petitioner. In view of the same, the submission made by the petitioner that they did not receive the show cause notice as well as the personal hearing notices, has to be accepted by this Court. No documentary evidence has also been produced by the respondents before this Court to prove that the impugned Order-in-Original was received by the petitioner. Therefore, the case of the petitioner that only when the petitioner’s further exports were stopped/delayed by the Customs Department, they came to know about the impugned Order-in-Original has to be accepted by this Court.

6. In view of the above, since the respondents have passed the impugned Order