MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH WP No.29074 of 2025 M/s Nova Enterprises

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP No.29074 of 2025
M/s Nova Enterprises
1st Floor, Building No.C/3, Gala
No.105,106 Shri Balaji Complex
Vehele Road, NR Mankoli Naka
Bhatale Village, Maharashtra 421 302
rep.by its Authorized Signatory Petitioner
Mr.Jagdish Kumar
Vs
The Addl. Commissioner of Customs
(SEZ-FTWZ)
Preventive Commissionerate
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House Chennai 600 001 Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records connected with the impugned Provisional Release Order dated 29.07.2025 in F.No.GEN/ ADJ/Misc/353/2025-SEZ-FTWZ issued by the Respondent herein and to quash the same to the extent of condition specified at para 1 and 2 of the said impugned Provisional Release order dated 29.07.2025, for the purpose of granting provisional release of the seized goods covered under the following Bills of Entry viz., (1) 7809559 dated 16.01.2025 (2) 7809812 dated 16.01.2025 (3) 7814955 dated 16.01.2025 (4) 8250451 dated 08.02.2025 (5) 8250666 dated 08.02.2025 (6) 8394683 dated 17.02.2025 (7) 8401212 dated 17.02.2025 (8) 8411983 dated 18.02.2025 and consequently to modify the above said condition for the purpose of provisional release of the said goods in terms of the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Navshakti Industries-2011 (269) ELT (A-146) (SC) r/w the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963 and also in terms of the past contemporaneous clearance of the very same goods imported by the petitioner concern, which goods admittedly came to be assessed and cleared by proper officer of customs.
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 29.07.2025 issued by the respondent to the extent of condition specified at para 1 and 2 of the said impugned Provisional Release order dated 29.07.2025, for the purpose of granting provisional release of the seized goods covered under Bills of Entry viz., (1) 7809559 dated 16.01.2025 (2) 7809812 dated 16.01.2025 (3) 7814955 dated 16.01.2025 (4) 8250451 dated 08.02.2025 (5) 8250666 dated 08.02.2025 (6) 8394683 dated 17.02.2025 (7) 8401212 dated 17.02.2025 (8) 8411983 dated 18.02.2025 and consequently to modify the above said condition for the purpose of provisional release of the said goods.
2. The petitioner had imported goods which are ‘PVC Coated Fabric’ vide the subject bills of entry and the goods were moved to the Special Economic Zone unit situated at Nandiyambakkam, Chennai. The petitioner had approached the respondent for clearance of the goods from the Special Economic Zone unit. The petitioner was informed that the DRI officials have initiated investigation and only after obtaining the test report, a decision would be taken for release of the goods. Accordingly, the DRI detained the goods on various dates between January and March, 2025 covered by the subject bills of entry.
3. Pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent has issued the impugned provisional release order dated 29.07.2025 directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.1,55,50,000/- and a bond equivalent to the re-determined value of the goods, which is Rs.5,41,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32472 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025. The learned counsel submitted that the conditions that were imposed by this Court in that order can be applied to the petitioner also and the petitioner will abide by the same.
5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the relief sought for by the petitioner, on the ground that as against the impugned provisional release order, there is an appeal remedy available to the petitioner. Even on merits, the learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the authority has re-determined the value of the goods to the tune of Rs.5,41,00,000/- and if at all the petitioner wants the release of the goods, the petitioner has to either pay the re-determined duty for the re-determined value or furnish a bank guarantee as has been directed by the respondent to the tune of Rs.1,55,50,000/-. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the impugned provisional release order that has been put to challenge in the present writ petition does not warrant the interference of this Court.
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the materials available on record.
7. The respondent has exercised jurisdiction under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent has taken into consideration the redetermined value of the goods under the subject bills of entry to the total tune of Rs.5,41,00,000/- and the petitioner is supposed to pay the re-determined duty, which comes to Rs.1,55,50,000/-. It is stated that the matter is at the stage of issuance of notice to the petitioner and the adjudication is pending. Under such circumstances, this Court must only see as to whether the conditions imposed by the respondent in the impugned provisional release order require the interference of this Court.
8. The above issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.32472 of 2025
and by order dated 18.09.2025, this Court held as follows:-
“12. This Court is not dealing with the merits of the case since what has been put to challenge is the provisional release order and that too questioning some of the onerous conditions. While undertaking this exercise, it will suffice to take note of some of the earlier orders passed by this Court. One such order was passed in the case of Green Line Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-IV, reported in 2016 (340) E.L.T 140 (Mad). That was also a case, which involved differential duty of non prohibited goods. Similar conditions were imposed and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court in the following terms:
“8. In the light of the above discussions, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioner is directed to remit the entire duty as assessed by them;
(ii) The petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the differential duty which has been arrived at by the Department as Rs. 22.72 lakhs;
(iii) The petitioner is directed to execute a bond for the remaining amount to the satisfaction of the respondents.
(iv) The petitioner shall execute an indemnity bond stating that in the event of Shri.S.Ariya raising any claim over the goods or concerning the use of IEC code issued in favour of M/s. Green Line, the petitioner Mr.Mohamed Kalith alone would be fully responsible for the same and no liability can be fastened on the respondent Department and the indemnity bond should be furnished in the form approved by the respondents.”
13. This order of the learned Single Judge was subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1243 of 2016 dated 25.10.2016. It is also relevant to take note of a Division Bench order of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Others vs. Sri Venkateshwara Paper Boards Rep.by its General Manager Mr.L.Barath reported in 2022 (379) E.L.T 310 (Mad), which involved prohibited goods and the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:
“32. We have perused the order dated 29.12.2020 permitting provisional release of the cargo, subject to the following conditions:
(a) execution of a bond for Rs.34,65,334/-,
(b) production of cash security/bank guarantee for Rs. 12,12,867/- towards redemption fine and penalty, and
(c) payment of duty of Rs. 9,43,411/-.
33.We find nothing unreasonable about conditions (a) and (c), however condition (b) is concerned directing the Importer to furnish Bank guarantee/cash security towards redemption fine and penalty would be harsh as the show-cause notice is yet to be adjudicated. Therefore, we modify the condition (b) alone by directing the Importer to execute the bond for Rs. 12,12,867/-.
34. On compliance of the execution of the bond for the amount mentioned in conditions (a) and (b) supra and payment of duty as mentioned in condition (c), the Revenue shall permit provisional release of the cargo within seven (7) days therefrom, which shall be subject to the result of the adjudication of the show-cause notice.”
14. In the case in hand, the goods that are involved are Viscose Knitted Fabric, which according to the Department has been misclassified and undervalued. Therefore, the Department is proceeding further with the adjudication proceedings. Pending the same, the impugned provisional release order has been passed.
15. The conditions that have been imposed in the provisional release order are as follows:
Specific Conditions:
1. The importer shall file the DTA Bill of Entry for provisional release for the re-determined value and shall pay re-determined duty as mentioned in seizure memo and / or NOC issued by the DRI, HQ, New Delhi. The Bill of Entry shall be assessed in view of pending investigation.
2. The importer shall execute a Bond for Rs.91,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs only)
3. The importer shall furnish a Bank Guarantee(BG) for Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs only)
16. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the grounds raised in the writ petition and also taking into consideration of the earlier orders passed by this Court, this Court is inclined to modify the conditions imposed in the provisional release order as follows:
a) The petitioner is directed to remit the entire duty
as declared by them.
b) The petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the differential duty for the total value arrived at by the
Department at Rs.90,95,299.23/-
c) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.91,00,000/-(Rupees Ninety One Lakhs only) and
d) The petitioner shall also execute a bond for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs only) instead of Bank Guarantee. On compliance, the goods shall be released by the respondents within a period of seven days from the date of compliance of the conditions.”
9. The above yardstick can be applied in the present case also and hence, this Court is inclined to modify the conditions imposed in the impugned provisional release order issued by the respondent, as follows:-
a) The petitioner is directed to remit the entire duty
as declared by them;
b) The petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the differential duty for the total value arrived at by the
Department to the tune of Rs.5,41,00,000/-;
c) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,41,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crores Forty One Lakhs only) and
d) The petitioner shall also execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,55,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) instead of Bank Guarantee. On compliance, the goods shall be released by the respondent within a period of seven days from the date of compliance of the conditions.
10. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.32619 & 32620 of 2025 are closed. No costs.
23-09-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No ss 
To
1. The Addl. Commissioner of Customs
(SEZ-FTWZ)
Preventive Commissionerate
No.60, Rajaji Salai
Customs House
Chennai 600 001 
N.ANAND
VENKATESH J.
ss
WP No. 29074 of 2025

23-09-2025