ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #UrbanEssentialsIndiaPvt.Ltd.

  • CESTAT Chennai Remands Urban Essentials Sanitary Imports: BIS Certification, MSME Exemptions, and Procedural Fairness in Customs Adjudication

    CESTAT Chennai Remands Urban Essentials Sanitary Imports: BIS Certification, MSME Exemptions, and Procedural Fairness in Customs Adjudication

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.07.2026

    CESTAT Chennai Remands Urban Essentials Sanitary Imports: BIS Certification, MSME Exemptions, and Procedural Fairness in Customs Adjudication

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com . Β 

    The recent order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has brought to light critical issues surrounding the import of sanitary products into India. The case of M/s. Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. versus the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) centers on the application of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) requirements, the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order (QCO), and the rights of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in the import process.

    Background: The Import and Detention

    Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd., a registered MSME, imported large consignments of sanitary napkins and panty liners from China in early 2025. The goods, valued at over INR 21 million, were detained by customs authorities at Chennai port. The reason: the products did not bear the mandatory BIS Standard Mark, and the importer lacked a valid BIS licence, as required by the QCO, 2024 (amended in 2025).

    The Legal Framework

    • Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2024 (QCO): Mandates that sanitary products must conform to Indian Standard IS 5405:2019/2025 and bear the BIS mark.
    • BIS Act, 2016: Section 17 prohibits the import, sale, or distribution of such goods without a valid BIS licence and Standard Mark.
    • QCO Implementation Timeline: Large and Medium Enterprises had to comply by 01.01.2025, while MSMEs were given until 01.04.2025.

    Customs Action and the Appeal

    The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods, imposed a fine for re-export, and levied penalties under the Customs Act. Urban Essentials appealed, arguing:

    • As an MSME, they were entitled to the extended compliance deadline (01.04.2025).
    • The QCO should not apply to their imports, as the goods were shipped before the MSME deadline.
    • The date of import should be determined by the Bill of Lading and Shipping Bill, both predating the compliance deadline.

    Key Issues Examined by the Tribunal

    1. Applicability of BIS Standards: Whether the imported goods must conform to IS 5405:2019/2025 and bear the BIS mark.
    2. MSME Deadline Extension: Whether the QCO’s relaxation for MSMEs applies to importers or only to domestic manufacturers.
    3. Prohibition and Confiscation: Whether goods imported without a BIS licence are β€˜prohibited’ and liable for confiscation.
    4. Procedural Fairness: Whether the Commissioner’s order was a “speaking order” that properly addressed all arguments and legal nuances.

    Tribunal’s Observations and Findings

    • The Tribunal found that the Commissioner’s order lacked detailed reasoning and failed to analyze the QCO guidance and MSME arguments.
    • The order did not clarify whether the MSME extension applied to importers, despite the appellant’s registration as a small enterprise.
    • Procedural irregularities were noted, including conflicting interim orders and writ petitions before the High Court.

    The Outcome: Remand for Fresh Adjudication

    The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner’s order and remanded the case for a fresh, detailed adjudication. The Commissioner was directed to:

    • Issue a new, reasoned order considering all arguments, especially regarding MSME status and the correct date of import.
    • Complete proceedings within 60 days, strictly adhering to principles of natural justice.

    Why This Case Matters

    This case highlights the complexities of regulatory compliance for importers, especially MSMEs, under evolving quality control regimes. It underscores the need for:

    • Clear, well-reasoned administrative orders.
    • Proper application of QCO and BIS requirements.
    • Careful consideration of MSME-related relaxations in import compliance.

    Conclusion

    The Urban Essentials case serves as a precedent for future disputes involving BIS certification and MSME rights in imports. It emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and detailed legal reasoning in customs adjudication, ensuring that both regulatory objectives and business realities are balanced.

    Source: CESTAT Chennai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Madras High Court Issues Writ of Mandamus Directing Release of Confiscated Imported Goods Under Quality Control Order

    Madras High Court Issues Writ of Mandamus Directing Release of Confiscated Imported Goods Under Quality Control Order

    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 – II (Import), to release the company’s imported goods. ​ 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. ​

    Background of the Case

    Urban Essentials India Pvt. ​ Ltd., represented by its director, is a Chennai-based importer of feminine hygiene products, including sanitary napkins and panty liners. ​ These products are manufactured in China using advanced technology unavailable in India and are sold under the brand name β€œPlush.” 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. ​

    The company imported goods under two Bills of Entry dated 29.03.2025 and 31.03.2025. ​ 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. ​ 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. ​ This led to the confiscation of the petitioner’s goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, along with penalties and fines. ​

    Legal Proceedings

    Urban Essentials India Pvt. ​ Ltd. filed multiple writ petitions to seek the release of their goods. ​ Initially, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to pass orders within four weeks. ​ However, the Customs Department ordered the confiscation of the goods, imposed a fine of β‚Ή10,00,000/- under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, and levied a penalty of β‚Ή5,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act. ​ The department argued that the goods did not conform to BIS standards and were imported in violation of the QCO. ​

    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. ​ The court advised the petitioner to seek an alternate remedy before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). ​

    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. ​ 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 Court’s Final Decision

    Despite the CESTAT’s 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. ​

    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. ​ 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 β€œfull faith and credit” to judicial decisions. ​ Since the CESTAT had already stayed the order-in-original and allowed the petitioner’s application for provisional release, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to comply with the CESTAT’s order. ​

    Key Takeaways from the Judgment

    1. Recognition of MSMEs: The court acknowledged the petitioner’s status as a registered MSME and upheld its entitlement to the extended timeline under the QCO amendment. ​
    2. Judicial Authority: The judgment reinforced the principle that judicial orders from quasi-judicial authorities like the CESTAT must be respected and implemented. ​
    3. Provisional Release of Goods: The court ordered the release of the goods, subject to the petitioner depositing β‚Ή15,00,000/- with the respondent within 24 hours. ​ 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 Court’s observations. ​

    Conclusion

    The Madras High Court’s 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. ​ As the case proceeds to the CESTAT for final adjudication, this judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding the rights of businesses while balancing regulatory compliance.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Source: Madras High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com