Madras High Court judge Ananth venkadesh Provides Relief to Importer, Waives Bank Guarantee for Customs Release

[26/09, 14:57] Sekarreporter: [26/09, 14:57] Sekarreporter: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxFZ3iPm7J2siA9XRxaGgb609ij8x_LzPt?si=COlcZLWXAOjNEHLF
[26/09, 14:57] Sekarreporter: Madras High Court Provides Relief to Importer, Waives Bank Guarantee for Customs Release
Chennai, September 25, 2025 – The Madras High Court has provided significant relief to importers by waiving the bank guarantee requirement in customs provisional release cases, instead allowing execution of bonds as alternative security.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, in a judgment delivered on September 23, 2025, modified the stringent conditions imposed by customs authorities on M/s Nova Enterprises for the release of seized PVC coated fabric worth over Rs 5 crores.
Case Details
The Maharashtra-based Nova Enterprises had imported PVC coated fabric through eight Bills of Entry between January and February 2025. The goods, moved to a Special Economic Zone unit in Nandiyambakkam, Chennai, were subsequently detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for investigation into alleged misclassification and undervaluation.
The Additional Commissioner of Customs (SEZ-FTWZ) had re-determined the value of the goods to Rs 5,41,00,000 and demanded a bank guarantee of Rs 1,55,50,000 along with a bond equivalent to the re-determined value for provisional release.
Legal Representation
The case was argued by Mr. S. Baskaran representing the petitioner, while Mrs. Revathi Manivannan, Senior Standing Counsel, appeared for the customs department.
Court’s Decision
Justice Venkatesh, following precedent from a similar case decided earlier this month (W.P. No. 32472 of 2025), modified the conditions to make them more reasonable for the importer while protecting revenue interests.
Modified Conditions:
• Payment of entire duty as originally declared by the importer
• Payment of 50% of the differential duty on the re-determined value
• Execution of a bond for Rs 5,41,00,000
• Execution of an additional bond for Rs 1,55,50,000 instead of the bank guarantee
Legal Precedent
The court cited the established principle from the Green Line vs. Commissioner of Customs case and noted that since adjudication proceedings are still pending, requiring a bank guarantee would be unduly harsh on the petitioner.
Justice Venkatesh observed that the court’s role in such cases is limited to examining whether the conditions imposed by customs authorities require judicial intervention, particularly when the matter is at the notice stage.
Background
The case involved goods worth Rs 5.41 crores that were detained between January and March 2025. The DRI’s investigation was based on suspected misclassification and undervaluation of the imported PVC coated fabric.
The judgment in WP No. 29074 of 2025 was uploaded to the Madras High Court website on September 25, 2025.
[26/09, 15:04] Sekarreporter: “For Petitioner : Mr.S.Baskaran
For Respondent : Mrs.Revathi Manivannan
Senior Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Provisional Release Order dated 15.07.2025 issued by the respondent to the extent of condition specified at para”

MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH WP No.28694 of 2025 M/s HI Rexine No.458, Mint Street Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079 rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Sanjay Kumar Petitioner Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Customs (SEZ-FTWZ) Preventive Commissionerate