High Court of Madras Quashes Customs Department Order

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 10.02.2026

High Court of Madras Quashes Customs Department Order

​

On February 2, 2026, the High Court of Madras delivered a landmark judgment in the case of WP No. ​ 5786 of 2025, brought forward by M/s. ​ Autoprint Machinery Manufactures Pvt Ltd. ​ The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the validity of a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) that imposed a time limit for filing applications to amend shipping bills. ​

This blog delves into the details of the case, the arguments presented, and the implications of the judgment.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Autoprint Machinery Manufactures Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Respondent No. ​ 1). The order, dated November 21, 2024, rejected the petitioner’s application for amending shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, citing Circular No. 36/2010-Customs issued by CBEC, which imposed a time limit for such amendments. ​

The petitioner argued that Section 149 of the Customs Act does not prescribe any time limit for filing applications for amendments to shipping bills or bill of entries. ​ Therefore, the CBEC circular was deemed to be ultra vires and beyond the scope of the statute. ​

Key Issue in the Case

The primary issue before the court was whether the CBEC could issue a circular fixing a time limit for filing applications for amendments under Section 149 of the Customs Act, despite the absence of any such provision in the statute. ​

Arguments Presented

1. Petitioner’s Argument: ​
   • The petitioner contended that the CBEC circular was invalid as it imposed a time limit that was not prescribed under Section 149 of the Customs Act. ​
   • The petitioner’s counsel relied on various judgments from Constitutional Courts across India, which consistently held that statutory provisions cannot be overridden or restricted by administrative circulars. ​
2. Respondents’ Argument: ​
   • The respondents argued that the circular was issued in accordance with the law and was valid. ​
   • They also informed the court that the same issue was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. ​ No. 38482 of 2025, but admitted that no stay had been granted by the Supreme Court on the matter. ​

The Court’s Observations

Justice, presiding over the case, made the following observations:

1. No Time Limit in Section 149: ​
   • The court noted that Section 149 of the Customs Act does not prescribe any specific time limit for filing applications to amend shipping bills or bill of entries. ​ Therefore, the CBEC circular imposing a time limit was deemed to be inconsistent with the statute. ​
2. Consistency in Judicial Precedents: ​
   • The court referred to previous judgments from various Constitutional Courts, which had consistently held that administrative circulars cannot impose restrictions that are not explicitly provided for in the statute. ​
3. Pending Supreme Court Case: ​
   • While the respondents highlighted that the issue was under consideration by the Supreme Court, the court clarified that no stay had been granted by the apex court. ​ Hence, the High Court was not bound to defer its decision.
4. Equal Treatment for Importers/Exporters: ​
   • The court emphasized that there cannot be different standards for different importers/exporters. ​ The petitioner should not be penalized simply because the Customs Department had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. ​

The Judgment

The High Court of Madras quashed the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. ​ The court directed the following:

1. The 1st respondent must reconsider the petitioner’s application for amendment of shipping bills on merits and in accordance with the law. ​
2. The 1st respondent must not rely on Circular No. ​ 36/2010-Customs dated 23.09.2010 while making the decision. ​
3. The petitioner must be given an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice. ​
4. The final order must be passed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the court’s order. ​
5. The petitioner must be allowed to pay the appropriate fees for the application seeking amendment of shipping bills. ​

The court also clarified that the final decision of the 1st respondent would be subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court case in S.L.P. ​ No. 38482 of 2025. ​

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment is significant for importers and exporters across India as it reinforces the principle that administrative circulars cannot override statutory provisions. By quashing the CBEC circular, the court has upheld the supremacy of the Customs Act and ensured that businesses are not unfairly penalized due to arbitrary time limits imposed by administrative authorities. ​

The decision also highlights the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, ensuring that affected parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case. ​

Conclusion

The High Court of Madras has once again demonstrated its commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of businesses. The judgment in WP No. ​ 5786 of 2025 serves as a reminder that administrative authorities must act within the bounds of the law and cannot impose restrictions that are not explicitly provided for in the statute.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Madras High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com