Case Details: Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai-II (2026) 39 Centax 28 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- V. Lakshminarayanan, J.
- S/Shri Raghavan Ramabadran Assisted by Santhana Gopalan D. & S. Ganesh for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri K. Guruprasad for Su. Srinivasan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee, an importer and a small enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME), dealt in sanitary napkins and panty liners and imported such goods from an overseas manufacturer who had applied to the Bureau of Indian Standards and had placed orders prior to April 2025. Under the Medical Textiles Quality Control Order, 2024 (QCO), compliance with IS 5405:2019, along with the BIS mark, was mandated from January 2025, an amendment issued in January 2025 granted relaxation only to manufacturers, and a subsequent amendment issued on 30-07-2025 extended the benefit to importers as well, up to 31-12-2025. The department initiated adjudication proceedings alleging non-compliance with the QCO and ordered confiscation of the goods with direction for re-export and imposition of penalties. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the petitioner, being an importer and MSME, was entitled to the benefit of the amended QCO issued on 30-07-2025, which allowed the sale, display, or offering for sale of declared stock up to 31-12-2025. It was observed that the overseas manufacturer had applied to the Bureau of Indian Standards, and the orders were placed prior to April 2025. The High Court further held that the Office Memorandum dated 01-09-2021 could not replace or override a statutory notification. It noted that a combined reading of the amendments showed that where the manufacturer had applied to the Bureau of Indian Standards, and the stock imported prior to April 2025 did not bear the required mark, such stock could still be sold within the extended timeline. The High Court therefore held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the amended order and to the release of the goods as directed earlier by the CESTAT.
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- Commissioner of Customs, Mundra Alert Notice No. 2/2025, dated 27-2-2025 [Paras 4, 10]
