Disposed

M/s. Fab India v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs

Madras HC30 Mar 2026WP/12627/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Importer sought mandamus to re-export coated textile fabric seized/imported under customs proceedings. Both sides agreed the issue was covered by this Court's earlier order permitting re-export on conditions; petition disposed on the same terms.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to re-export the imported goods on terms: bond for total differential duty payable, bank guarantee equivalent to 5% of re-determined value, re-export within 12 days of compliance.

M/s. Fab India Vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs — Customs and Excise | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P. No.12627 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.12627 of 2026 and W.M.P. No.13781 of 2026

¶7

M/s.FAB INDIA

¶8

Rep., by its Proprietor Mr. Yogesh Maruti Barve, Plot No. 174, Flat No. 301, Sector 11, Vashi Navi Mubai 400 070

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai- III) (Preventive), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai- 600 001.

¶12

The Intelligence Officer, DRI (Hqrs.), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 7th floor, Drum Shaped Building, I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi- 110 002.

¶13

The Specified Officer, FTWZ M/s.NDR Infrastructure Private Limited Nandiambakkam, Ponneri Taluk, Chennai-600 120.

¶14

The Additional Commissioner of Customs (NDR-FTWZ) O/o.The Principal Commissioner of custom, Preventive Commissionerate, Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents herein to Permit the

¶17

__________ Page 1 of 8

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P. No.12627 of 2026

¶20

petitioner to Re- Export the goods Viz., 289193.57 SQM of Textile Fabric coated with Plastics imported vide Bill of Entry No.7818813 dated 16.01.2025 and Bill of Lading No.A92EX27618.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.K.Jayaraj For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Sivaraman Junior Panel Counsel (for R1)

¶22

Mr.Bharath Gowtham Standing Counsel (for R2)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to re-export the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.7818813 dated 16.01.2025 and Bill of Lading No.A92EX27618.

¶25

At the outset, it is submitted by both the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned 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:

¶26

“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.

¶27

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had imported fabrics, which have been lying with the

¶28

Page 2 of 8

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P. No.12627 of 2026

¶31

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’).

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

Page 3 of 8

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P. No.12627 of 2026

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

6. In such circumstances, the petitioner vide representation dated 13.10.2025, requested the second respondent to permit reexport of the seized goods to the designated foreign buyers in terms of Section 69 of the Act, while also stating that continued retention of the goods, pursuant to the seizure, would only result in diminish its value. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fabrics which have been imported are designspecific and season-specific and their continued retention without it being used, would result in the fabric being rendered useless. He would also bring to the notice of the Court that the seized fabrics were lying in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and not cleared for home consumption. It is also submitted that at that stage, the question of misdeclaration would possibly not arise.

¶40

7. This Court does not propose to go into the above question. But, keeping in view the facts of the present case, this Court is

¶41

Page 4 of 8

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P. No.12627 of 2026

¶44

inclined to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to reexport the goods, keeping in view the submissions which were not in dispute, but these goods have been lying with the respondents for more than a year and samples have also been drawn and no useful purpose would be served by continued seizure of the goods.

¶45

8. As a matter of fact, while the learned counsels for the respondents 1 to 3 do not have any serious objection to permitting re-export, however, while the petitioner would submit, placing reliance upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Assistant Commissioner of Customs-Imports, Tuticorin and others vs. Mahadev Enterprises made in W.A(MD).No.556 of 2022 dated 23.06.2022, that the re-export may be permitted subject to the condition that he would execute a bond to cover the value of the goods pending adjudication.

¶46

9. The learned counsels for the respondents 1 to 3, on other hand, would submit that in addition to executing the bond, the petitioner shall also furnish a Bank Guarantee.

¶47

10. After submitting for a brief while, the petitioner offered to furnish a bank guarantee in addition to executing a bond equivalent to 5% of the re-determined value, which was also agreed by the learned counsels for the respondents.

¶48

11. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to re-export the goods imported vide Z-Type Bills of Entry Nos.7752786, 7753306, 7752983, 7754614 and 7753850

¶49

Page 5 of 8

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P. No.12627 of 2026

¶52

dated 13.01.2025. subject to the following condition:

¶53

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for the total value of the differential duty payable to them;

¶54

(ii) The petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to 5% of the re-determined value; and

¶55

(iii) On the petitioner fulfilling the above two conditions, they shall be permitted to re-export the goods within a period of 12 days from the date of compliance of the above conditions as imposed by this Court.

¶56

No Costs.”

¶57

3. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms.

¶58

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶59

30-03-2026

¶60

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MKA

¶61

Page 6 of 8

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

W.P. No.12627 of 2026

¶64

To:

¶65

1.The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai- III) (Preventive), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai- 600 001.

¶66

2.The Intelligence Officer, DRI (Hqrs.), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 7th floor, Drum Shaped Building, I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi- 110 002.

¶67

3.The Specified Officer, FTWZ M/s.NDR Infrastructure Private Limited Nandiambakkam, Ponneri Taluk, Chennai-600 120.

¶68

4.The Additional Commissioner of Customs (NDR-FTWZ) O/o.The Principal Commissioner of custom, Preventive Commissionerate, Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

¶69

__________ Page 7 of 8

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

W.P. No.12627 of 2026

¶72

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.

¶73

MKA

¶74

W.P. No.12627 of 2026

¶75

30-03-2026

¶76

__________ Page 8 of 8

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s. Fab India v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Fab India v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Anitha Vs the Commissioner /the Director

Gourment Popcornica LLP Vs Commissioner

M/S. Arka Business Solutions Vs The Commissioner of Customs (Chennai Ii) Import

M/S Tharani Industries by Partner Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs

Dr Sernthil Raj K, IAS Vs Mrs. Bharathy and 7 others

M/s.Anandita Impex Vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs