IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ M/s.Rajam Steel Trader, IEC 0415013887, 0/10/59, Manali Express Road, Kamaraj Nagar, Ernavoor, Chennai-600 057, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.K.S.Kothandaraman.

..Petitioner Vs The Assistant Commissioner Office Of Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai-II (Import), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

..Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 passed by respondent in F.No.CUS/AG/ MISC/112/2024-A/M and quash the same and further direct the respondent to sanction interest at the rate of 12 percent p.a. on the amount of Rs.35,61,455/-

wrongly collected from petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondents: Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi Senior Panel Counsel

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed challenging impugned order dated

11.01.2024 passed by respondent in F.No.CUS/AG/ MISC/112/2024-A/M and and for a further direction to respondent to sanction interest at the rate of 12 percent p.a. on the amount of Rs.35,61,455/- wrongly collected from petitioner.

2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled to claim interest on sums collected by SIIB during the course of inspection/investigation of petitioner’s place of business.

3. Brief facts:

3.1. Petitioner is a proprietor concern and engaged in business of import and trading of steel. Petitioner purchased goods described as ‘hot rolled painted steel plates’, during September 2016, without discharging anti-dumping duty. There was an investigation on 25.05.2018, SIIB visited petitioner’s place of business. During the course of investigation, SIIB collected a sum of Rs.35,61,455/- from petitioner. Petitioner filed an application for refund on 17.09.2021 on the premise that amounts so collected during the course of investigation has not been validated/translated into lawful collection by issuance of a show cause notice or adjudication.

3.2. It is the case of petitioner that in the absence of the collection made by SIIB during the course of investigation being made lawful, the same would be without authority of law and would not bear colour/ character of duty. 4. It may be relevant to note that there was a show cause notice

05.10.2021, which was issued wherein certain penalties were proposed. Interestingly, even in that show cause notice, no attempt was made to turn the collections made by SIIB during the course of investigation, lawful.

5. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred writ petitions in W.P.Nos.24705 and

24706 of 2021 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.2021, directing respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders with regard to proposal on penalty and also to consider the petitioner’s request for refund made earlier. An order came to be passed on 12.12.2022, wherein proposal to levy penalty was dropped. However, there is no discussion nor is the request of refund made by petitioner on 17.09.2021, even considered in the order dated 12.12.2022.

6. Petitioner took out yet another application seeking refund on

23.01.2023. Petitioner was granted refund of the principal amount of Rs.35,61,455/-, collected by SIIB during the course of investigation on 25.05.2018. Petitioner’s request for interest was rejected on the premise that provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act may have no applicability inasmuch as what was collected by SIIB would not bear the character of duty nor a pre-deposit before an appellate authority and thus in the absence of any express provision, which provides for levy of interest, no interest could be awarded to petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that once collection of duty is found to be without authority of law, they would be entitl