IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and W.M.P. Nos.7211 and 7213 of 2026 ABB India Limited Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Jayavanth Rao, Plot No.5 and 6, 2nd Stage, Peenya Industrial Area IV, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru-560 058.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Deputy Commissioner of Customs (BRC-DBK)

No.60, Custom House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

2. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Office Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-IV)

No.60, Custom House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned order-in-original No.113422/2025 dated 06.06.2025 issued by 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 06.02.2026 for permanent revocation of IEC alert.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Raghavan Rambadaran For Respondent(s): Ms.Pooja Jain Junior Panel Counsel

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.06.2025 on the short ground that it seeks to recover drawback in respect of 10 shipping bills although admittedly the drawback was credited to the account of the petitioner only in respect of 3 out of the 10 shipping bills and thus suffers from error apparent on the face of the record.

2. Petitioner is engaged in the import of components required for manufacture of automation products, distribution control systems, panels, relays etc., The goods so imported are used in the manufacture of other goods which are then exported. During the period July 2020 to September 2021, petitioner had apparently filed 10 shipping bills and claimed drawback of customs duty in terms of Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that out of the 10 shipping bills, petitioner received drawback amount only in respect of 3 shipping bills and no drawback amount was credited to the account of the petitioner in respect of the remaining 7 shipping bills. With regard to the 3 shipping bills in respect of which petitioner had been extended the benefit of duty drawback, he would submit that Bank Realisation Certificate is available and thus entitled to duty drawback. While so, respondent had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 07.03.2023 proposing to recover drawback of Rs.12,48,286/- along with interest and penalty, which represents the duty drawback in respect of all 10 shipping bills. In other words, petitioner would submit that the impugned show cause notice proceeds on an erroneous premise that duty drawback had been availed in respect of 10 shipping bills which according to the petitioner is contrary to the facts admitted.

4. Though the show cause notice was issued, petitioner for some reason had not responded and therefore the impugned order-in-original came to be passed confirming the proposal. After the impugned order came to be passed by the Revenue against IEC of the petitioner in view of pending areas, petitioner thereafter filed representations seeking revocation of the IEC alert. On 09.01.2026, there was a temporary revocation of the alert. Subsequent to the temporary revocation it was reintroduced, however that was again revoked vide proceedings dated 11.03.2026. Copy of which has not been placed before this Court by Ms.Pooja Jain, learned Junior Standing Counsel for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the impugned order insofar as it demands drawback in respect of all 10 shipping bills is contrary to the proceedings dated 09.01.2026 wherein while temporarily revoking the alert, it was found that drawback amount has not been credited to the account of the petitioner in respect of 7 shipping bills. The relevant portions is extracted hereunder:

“5. Further, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Drawback Section informed that in r/o 03 shipping Bills (viz., S.No.1,2,3 of Table 1 in the