ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 01.01.2026
Madras High Court Issues Writ of Mandamus Directing Release of Confiscated Imported Goods Under Quality Control Order
This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.
In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court recently ruled in favor of Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd., directing the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai β II (Import), to release the companyβs imported goods. β The case, W.P.No.50475 of 2025, revolved around the import of feminine hygiene products and the applicability of the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Textiles. β
Background of the Case
Urban Essentials India Pvt. β Ltd., represented by its director, is a Chennai-based importer of feminine hygiene products, including sanitary napkins and panty liners. β These products are manufactured in China using advanced technology unavailable in India and are sold under the brand name βPlush.β The Chinese manufacturer had applied for certification under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Foreign Manufacturer Certification Scheme, as the products fall under BIS Schedule-A and must comply with BIS standard IS 5045:2019. β
The company imported goods under two Bills of Entry dated 29.03.2025 and 31.03.2025. β However, an alert notice issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs on 27.02.2025 raised concerns about the applicability of the Quality Control Order (QCO) on imports. β The Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) clarified that the relaxation granted in the QCOs for obtaining BIS licenses under Conformity Assessment Rules did not apply to imports. β This led to the confiscation of the petitionerβs goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, along with penalties and fines. β
Legal Proceedings
Urban Essentials India Pvt. β Ltd. filed multiple writ petitions to seek the release of their goods. β Initially, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to pass orders within four weeks. β However, the Customs Department ordered the confiscation of the goods, imposed a fine of βΉ10,00,000/- under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, and levied a penalty of βΉ5,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act. β The department argued that the goods did not conform to BIS standards and were imported in violation of the QCO. β
The petitioner challenged this order in W.P.No.37033 of 2025, but the High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the QCO applied to manufacturers and not importers. β The court advised the petitioner to seek an alternate remedy before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). β
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CESTAT, along with a miscellaneous application seeking interim relief for the release of goods and a stay on the order-in-original. β On 22.12.2025, the CESTAT allowed the application, granting a stay on the operation of the impugned order and permitting the provisional release of the goods.
The High Courtβs Final Decision
Despite the CESTATβs order, the Commissioner of Customs did not release the goods, prompting Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. to file another writ petition (W.P.No.50475 of 2025) seeking a writ of mandamus for the release of the goods. The case was heard by the Honourable Justice on 26.12.2025. β
After carefully considering the submissions from both sides, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Justice noted that the petitioner, as an importer and a registered MSME under the UDYAM Registration Certification, was entitled to the benefit of the extended timeline granted under the second amendment to the QCO dated 30.07.2025. β This amendment allowed importers to sell, display, or offer to sell declared stocks up to 31.12.2025, provided the goods were imported before 01.04.2025.
The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial orders under Article 261 of the Constitution of India, which mandates βfull faith and creditβ to judicial decisions. β Since the CESTAT had already stayed the order-in-original and allowed the petitionerβs application for provisional release, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to comply with the CESTATβs order. β
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Recognition of MSMEs: The court acknowledged the petitionerβs status as a registered MSME and upheld its entitlement to the extended timeline under the QCO amendment. β
- Judicial Authority: The judgment reinforced the principle that judicial orders from quasi-judicial authorities like the CESTAT must be respected and implemented. β
- Provisional Release of Goods: The court ordered the release of the goods, subject to the petitioner depositing βΉ15,00,000/- with the respondent within 24 hours. β This deposit was to be made without prejudice to the rights of the parties, ensuring that the ongoing appeal before the CESTAT would not be influenced by the High Courtβs observations. β
Conclusion
The Madras High Courtβs decision in favor of Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. is a significant victory for importers and MSMEs navigating complex regulatory frameworks. It highlights the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring fair treatment and compliance with statutory provisions. β As the case proceeds to the CESTAT for final adjudication, this judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciaryβs role in upholding the rights of businesses while balancing regulatory compliance.
Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel
Source: Madras High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379
Leave a Reply