IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.Nos.9506 & 9504 of 2023 M/s.Rishab International, Represented by its Partner, Mr.Pramod Kumar Goenka, No.2, Seethammal Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai.

Presently at:

No.22/17, Cenotaph road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.14, Hudco Vishalla Bldg., B-Wing, 6th Floor, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.

2.The Commissioner of Customs, Trichy. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandammus, calling for the records and passed by the 1^st respondent vide impugned order No.315/2022-Cus dated 14.10.2022 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice and to consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to admit the appeal.

For Petitioner : Ms.Mathanghi for M/s.M.Narasimha Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.K.Mohana Murali Senior Panel Counsel *****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 14.10.2022 passed by the 1^st respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s statutory appeal on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory provision of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. The 2^nd respondent has not decided the petitioner’s appeal on merits, but has rejected the same only on the ground that the statutory pre-deposit amount prescribed u/s 129E of the Act has not been paid by the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would now submit that the petitioner is willing to comply with the payment of the statutory pre-deposit amount as prescribed u/s 129E of the Act for preferring an appeal before the 2^nd respondent.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order-in-original, dated

12.02.2014 and had preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent, which has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirement of Section 129E of the Act, by paying the statutory pre-

deposit amount.

5. Since the petitioner is now willing to pay the statutory pre-

deposit amount, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should be permitted to file the statutory appeal before the 2^nd respondent within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. In fact, it is noticed that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 2^nd respondent, dated 21.11.2004 by filing a revision before the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent has also rejected the same on the very same ground, namely that the petitioner has not complied with the requirement u/s 129E of the Act. Since the petitioner is now willing to pay the pre-deposit amount as stipulated u/s 129E of the Act, the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent and the 1^st respondent have to be quashed, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays the pre-deposit amount as stipulated u/s 129E of the Act, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

6. This Court deems it fit to direct the petitioner to pay the pre-

deposit amount with the 2^nd respondent, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Accordingly, on condition that the petitioner deposits the statutory pre-deposit amount with the 2^nd respondent for preferring an appeal before the 2^nd respondent, aggrieved by the order-in-original, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner is permitted to file the statutory appeal before the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent shall also entertain the same, subject to the fulfillment of the aforesaid condition by the petitioner and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. Once the petitioner deposits the statutory pre-deposit amount with the 2^nd respondent for preferring the statutory appeal, within the stipulated time prescribed by this Court, the impugned order passed by the