Case Details: Aarav Enterprises vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III (2026) 38 Centax 89 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
- Shri A.K. Jayaraj, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Siddharth Bhandari, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee imported viscose knitted fabrics from China, which were seized by the customs authorities on the allegation of misclassification based on a test report of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL). It was stated that on the basis of the CRCL test report, the goods were alleged to be misclassified and therefore liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was further placed on record that no decision in the adjudication proceedings had been taken till date and that the goods had remained under seizure for about ten months. The petitioner sought an option to re-export the seized goods. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the option to re-export was to be given to the petitioner. The Court held that such re-export was to be permitted on execution of a bond for the total value of the differential duty payable. It was further held that the petitioner was required to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to 20% of the re-determined value of the goods. On these terms, the petition was disposed of in favour of the petitioner.
List of Cases Cited
- Aashi Creations v. Principal Commissioner — (2025) 37 Centax 188 (Mad.) — Relied on [Para 6]
