IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.No.3114 of 2026 The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – II (Import), Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Regional Bench, Shastri Bhavan, Annex Building, 1st Floor, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.

2.Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Mr.Prince Kapoor, Shed No.1B, DCB Warehouse Survey No.926, 200 ft Ring Road, Ennore Express Highway, Madhavaram, Chennai – 600 060. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to Miscellaneous Order No.41108/2025 dated 22.12.2025 in M.A.No.41119 of 2025 passed by the CESTAT, Chennai, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Customs Act, 1962 and BIS Act, 2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General for Mrs.Revathi Manivannan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondents : Tribunal [R1]

Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran [R2]

*****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner (Customs Department) challenging the impugned order, dated 22.12.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent (CESTAT) in Miscellaneous Order No.41108 of 2025 in M.A.No.41119 of 2025.

2. Under the impugned order, the prayer sought for by the 2^nd respondent seeking for provisional release of the subject goods has been allowed. The petitioner (Customs Department) has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same is a non-speaking order. The petitioner has contended that without obtaining BIS certificates for the subject goods, the question of granting provisional release as ordered by CESTAT in the impugned order does not arise.

3. Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. He would submit that the 2^nd respondent had obtained provisional release of the subject goods under the impugned order. He drew the attention of this Court to an order, dated 26.12.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.50475 of 2025, which has been filed by the 2^nd respondent, in respect of the very same goods, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. He would submit that in the said order, a positive direction has been issued to the Customs Department to forthwith release the subject goods to the 2^nd respondent, subject to the 2^nd respondent depositing a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- directly to the account of the petitioner (Customs Department), within 24 hours from 26.12.2025. He would submit that, despite the 2^nd respondent having deposited Rs.15,00,000/- with the Customs Department on 27.12.2025, till date, the order, dated 26.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.50475 of 2025 has not been complied with by releasing the subject goods to the 2^nd respondent. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner would submit that, since the impugned order is a non-speaking order with regard to the objections raised by the petitioner (Customs Department) for grant of provisional release to the 2^nd respondent, the impugned order has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the 1^st respondent (Tribunal) for fresh consideration. He would also submit that a review application has been filed by the petitioner seeking for review of the order, dated 26.12.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.50475 of 2025, since the order dated 26.12.2025 has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to grant of provisional release of the goods and the said order was also passed without granting an opportunity for the petitioner to file a counter in the said writ petition. On instructions, he would submit that since the appeal is already pending before the 1^st respondent (CESTAT) as against the order in original passed against the 2^nd respondent with regard t