Customs goods under seizure for over a year may be permitted for re-export on bond and bank guarantee in the interest of justice.

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to immediately export the goods, imported vide Z-type Bills of Entry Nos.7767113 dated 13.01.2025 and 7799203 dated 15.1.2025.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Lohith Vasa Kumar Prithvi For Respondent(s): Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan, Senior Standing Counsel

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to immediately export the goods, imported vide Z-type Bills of Entry Nos.7767113 dated 13.01.2025 and

7799203 dated 15.1.2025.

2. At the outset, it is submitted by both the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents in unison that the issue involved in this writ petition stands covered by an order of this Court in W.P.

No.48760 of 2025 dated 09.03.2026, wherein it was held as under:

“This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to immediately export the goods, imported vide Z-Type Bills of Entry Nos.7752786, 7753306, 7752983, 7754614 and 7753850 dated 13.01.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had imported fabrics, which have been lying with the first respondent from 18.02.2025. It is submitted that samples of fabrics imported have already been tested and verified by the Department as well as the Laboratory. The petitioner received a series of seizure memos on 18.02.2025 issued by the second respondent, alleging that the petitioner had misclassified the goods imported and resultantly, it did not satisfy the condition relating to the minimum import price applicable to the import of fabrics. The goods imported were allegedly found to be in violation of MIP condition and were seized in exercise of the powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegations of misclassification and resultant undervaluation are based solely on the CRCL test report, and that there was no corroborative material or opportunity of being heard. A summon dated 19.02.2025 was issued under Section 108 of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the respondents 2 and 3 on 28.02.2025. The CRCL test report was intimated to the petitioner on 25.07.2025. Pursuant thereto, petitioner appeared and participated in the investigation and submitted necessary documents, including supplier invoices, product specifications and import correspondence. Despite which, the seized fabrics continue to remain under seizure and in the possession of the first respondent.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that the respondents, in not releasing the goods in question, have acted contrary to the mandate under Section 110 of the Act. In the meanwhile, the petitioner received an intimation dated 12.07.2025 from the respondents stating that a further period of six months was required to complete the investigation until then the seized goods would be liable to remain in their custody. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had not made any payment to its overseas suppliers – M/s.Shaoxing Joylong Import & Export Co. Ltd., and M/s.Shaoxing Keqiao Ruanfa Trade Co. Ltd.

5. In view of the seizure of the goods by the respondents, the petitioner’s overseas supplier, vide letter dated 07.10.2025, requested the petitioner to export the goods to another purchaser, namely, M/s.GCN Resources, No.6B, Jalan TMR 25, Taman, Melaka Raya, 75000 Melaka, Malaysia.

6. In such circumstances, the petitioner vide representation dated 13.10.2025, requested the second respondent to permit re- export of the seized goods to the designated foreign buyers in t