Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice ABDUL QUDDHOSE
M/S.VED MOTORS – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS - GR.5B) – Respondent
WP No. 3472 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Baskaran
For the Respondents: Revathi Manivannan
The court directed customs authorities to decide on an application for provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1963, within a specified timeframe, considering a favorable appellate order and internal 'No Objection' communication.
Headnote:The petitioner, a scooter manufacturer, sought the provisional release of imported spare parts under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1963, following a dispute over a 25% Customs Duty. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals II) Seaport, Chennai, via order dated 06.02.2025, determined that no misdeclaration of goods had been committed. Despite a "No Objection" communication from the fourth respondent dated 25.12.2025 and subsequent representations by the petitioner, the goods remained detained. The primary issue is whether the respondents should be directed to consider the application for provisional release in light of the favorable appellate order and the internal "No Objection" communication. The court observed that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the application is considered on merits and in accordance with law, particularly as the goods are essential for the petitioner's manufacturing activities. This Court directs the respondents 1 to 3 to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s application dated 30.12.2025, seeking for provisional release of the goods... within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Directing the respondents herein to release the goods under import, made vide Bill of Entry No. 5714611 dated 15.11.2025 which is a Live consignment by considering the various representation of the petitioner including the latest representation of the petiitoner dated 30.12.2025 in so far as in the said representation the petitioner had sought for the provisional release of goods, in pursuance to the communication dated 25.12.2025 issued by the 4th respondent herein directing the petitioner to approach the group concerned, viz for the provisional release of the seized goods, in terms of Sec. 110A of the Customs Act, by recording their No Objection towards such release of goods and also in terms of the Order in Appeal Seaport C.Cus.II No. 133/2025 dated 06.02.2025 passed by the commissioner of customs (Appeal II) Seaport, Chennai also in the tirms of the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Navshakti Industries - 2011 (269) ELT (A-146) (SC) and sec.18 r/w.Sec 110A of the Customs Act, 1963 and also to issue necessary detention certificate in terms of Reg.6(1) of the Handling of Cargos under Customs Area Regulation 2009 pending any further proceedings of the respondents herein and to pass.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Baskaran
For Respondent(s): M/s.Revathi Manivannan
Senior Standing Counsel For
Respondent
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to provisionally release the goods to the petitioner, which are the subject matter of the bill of entry morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition by giving due consideration to the order dated 06.02.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals II) Seaport, Chennai and also the communication dated 25.12.2025 issued by the fourth respondent, directing the petitioner to approach the group concerned viz., the respondents 1 to 3 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
The petitioner claims that they are scooter manufacturers and they regularly import spare parts from various countries. They claim that they have properly declared the goods to the Customs Department while seeking release of the subject goods, which is the subject matter of the bill of entry morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition.
The respondents had claimed 25% Customs Duty from the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, is incorrect. The said issue has now attained finality by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals II) Seaport, Chennai dated 06.02.2025, which has confirmed that there was no misdeclaration of goods committed by the petitioner pertaining to the subject bill of entry morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition.
The petitioner also claims that they are prepared to pay the Customs Duty as demanded by the respondents when they consider the petitioner’s application, seeking for grant of provisional release of the subject goods pertaining to the subject bill of entry morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition.
The petitioner also relies upon the communication dated 25.12.2025 issued by the fourth respondent permitting the petitioner to seek for provisional release of the subject goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act by recording their “No Objection” towards such release of goods and also in terms of the Order in Appeal Seaport C.Cus.II No.133/2025 dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Appeals-II Seaports, Chennai.
The petitioner had given various representations to the respondents, seeking for provisional release of the subject goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act and the last such representation was given on 30.12.2025. Since the said application seeking for provisional release was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Ms. Revathi Manivannan, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner’s app
