ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the Provisional Release Order dated23.12.2025 bearing F.No.GEN/ADJ/ADC/2240/2025-ADJN issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Chennai, insofar as it mandates furnishing of Bank Guarantee equivalent to 100% of the alleged customs duty payable, in addition to execution of bond equivalent to the full determined value of the seized goods, as a condition for provisional release of Maize Popcorn seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit vide Seizure Memorandum dated 23.10.2025.

2. The petitioner is a Partnership Firm engaged in domestic trading of agricultural commodities, particularly maize and maize popcorn. Petitioner is registered dealer under GST laws bearing GSTIN No.33AABFU3361K1Z7 and petitioner has also fixed place of business in Chennai.

3. It is submitted that on 11.07.2025, officers of the DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, conducted a search at M/s Komas Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Vadaperumbakkam, Chennai, and recovered 700 bags of maize popcorn bearing foreign markings indicating Nepal origin, which were stored in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that solely based on the foreign markings on the gunny bags used as packing material; it is alleged that these agricultural products, specifically maize, are being imported and stored at the facility.

4. Based on the facts above, the officers believed the goods were smuggled through the Indo-Nepal border without payment of the 50% Customs Duty under CTH 10059030. Consequently, they seized the goods via a seizure memorandum dated 23.10.2025.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner never imported any goods and these goods are not imported goods, but the goods which have been procured within India and would also submit that these goods were purchased against GST Invoices, copies of which have been enclosed in the typed set of papers. Petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.11.2025 seeking provisional release. On the above representation, the impugned order of provisional release was passed wherein the following conditions have been imposed:

Specific Conditions:

• The importer shall execute a Bond for Rs. 9,50,000/-, equivalent to the total determined value of the goods;

• The importer shall furnish a Bank Guarantee (BG) for Rs. 4,75,500/-, equivalent to the total duty payable. The Bank Guarantee should be valid for a minimum period of one year, with an auto-renewal clause until the completion of adjudication proceedings; and

• The importer shall submit an undertaking to fully comply with the adjudication outcome and pay any additional fine or penalty that may be imposed therein.

This order is issued without prejudice to any further action that may be taken under the provisions of the customs Act, 1962 or any other applicable laws.

6. The petitioner would submit that this Court would consider petitioner executing a bond as contained in the above orders of provisional release, but the Bank Guarantee equivalent to the alleged duty payable may be modified inasmuch as it is onerous as obtaining Bank Guarantee may require payment of 100% margin money. He would also place reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v. Navashakti Inds. Pvt.Ltd. reported in 2011 (26) E.L.T.A146(S.C.), insofar as the Bank Guarantee there was a direction to furnish Bank Guarantee of 30% of the duty.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Mr.S.Gurumurthy, submitted that this case involves smuggling and that a DRI investigation is currently underway. While it may be true that investigation is underway, this Court is presently concerned only with the direction regarding 100% Bank Guarantee. As submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner, Bank Guarantee is normally issued only upon payment of 100% margin money and therefore, onerous keeping in view the fact that petitioner would submit these goods were procured domestically against