Case Law Details
Midsea International Private Limited Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The writ petition was filed by Midsea International Private Limited against the actions of respondents, specifically challenging a summons dated July 17, 2025, issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner also contested the obstruction of the release of a consignment of vegetable waste (Broken Cashew Nut Pieces and Residues) by respondents 3 and 4, despite receiving all necessary clearances, including an out-of-charge and a gate pass (No. 2064635750, dated July 17, 2025). Additionally, the retrieval of personal mobile data by respondent No. 3 on July 19, 2025, was challenged as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner’s Case and Consignment Details
The petitioner, involved in import and export business, engaged Dhanishta Shipping and Logistics Private Limited as an authorized agent. The company requested Nguyen Phat Binh Phuoc Import and Export Company Limited, Viet Nam, to export the vegetable waste, described as broken Cashew Nut Pieces and Residues. The product is utilized for cattle feed and in poultries, and is stated to be perishable in nature. The container arrived at Kakinada Sea Port on June 17, 2025, at 08:14 hours.
After fulfilling formalities, the petitioner was asked by respondents 5 to 7 to furnish a TEST Bond for an amount of Rs. 45,00,031/- after payment of IGST and other charges totaling Rs. 8,31,053/-. A gate pass was prepared on July 8, 2025. While the petitioner was moving the goods from the port on July 8, 2025, between 18:25 and 19:11 hours, respondent No. 4 and staff arrived, directed the movement to stop, and detained the containers without notice.
This detention was initially challenged in W.P. No. 17691 of 2025, dated July 11, 2025, which was subsequently withdrawn. Respondent No. 4 then issued a summons on July 17, 2025, for the petitioner to appear on July 19, 2025. An enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 3 on July 19, 2025, where the petitioner answered all questions. The current writ petition specifically challenged the summons, claiming the petitioner had imported Cashew Nut Pieces/Shoot axis, which was not cashew.
Show-Cause Notice and Court Decision
During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents filed a memo with a copy of a show-cause notice dated September 19, 2025, which was placed on record. The Standing Counsel submitted that the notice was issued by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner for the import of mis-declared goods via Bill of Entry No. 2745054, dated June 19, 2025, and for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The counsel stated that the respondent authorities would consider the petitioner’s explanation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The petitioner’s counsel confirmed receipt of the September 19, 2025, notice and expressed readiness to submit an explanation immediately. The counsel requested the court to direct respondent No. 3 to pass orders quickly due to the perishable nature of the goods.
In light of these facts, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition without going into the merits of the case. The Court permitted the petitioner to submit an explanation to the show-cause notice dated September 19, 2025, as expeditiously as possible, without waiting for the 30-day period given in the notice. The Court directed respondent No. 6 to consider the explanation upon receipt and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) weeks, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and there was no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
This writ petition is filed against the action of respondent No.3 in issuing summons dated 17.07.2025 under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 and also in obstructing the release of the consignment i.e. vegetable waste (Broken Cashew Nut Pieces and Residues which are perishable in nature) by the respondents 3 & 4, in spite of all clearances from the respondent authorities as well as after issuance of out of charge and gate pass in Gate Pass No.2064635750, dated 17.07.2025, as well as retrieving the personal mobile data by respondent No.3 dated 19.07.2025, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he involved in import and export business under the name and style as Midsea International Private Limited, which was approved by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. For the process of import business, the petitioner engaged an authorized agent namely Dhanishta Shipping and Logistics Private Limited. The petitioner made a request to Nguyen Phat Binh Phuoc Import and Export Company Limited, Viet Nam, to import and export vegetable waste broken Cashew Nut Pieces and Residues, which are perishable in nature and product is utilized for the purpose of cattle feed as well as in the poultries. As per request of the petitioner, the import and export company at Viet Nam exported the same through petitioner’s authorized agent. The container arrived at Kakinada Sea Port on 17.06.2025 at about 08.:14 hours. After fulfilling all the formalities, respondents 5 to 7 requested to release the consignment on furnishing a TEST Bond for an amount of Rs.45,00,031/- by the petitioner i.e. after payment of IGST and also other charges to a tune of Rs.8,31,053/-. Thereafter, a gate pass was prepared by respondents 5 to 7 and 8 on 08.07.2025. After clearing all the formalities, while the petitioner was about to shift the goods from the port, respondent No.4 along with staff surprised the place at 18:25 to 19:11 hours on 08.07.2025 and directed to stop the movement of containers and detained the containers, without any notice. The said action of the respondent authorities was challenged in W.P.No.17691 of 2025 dated 11.07.2025. The said writ petition has been withdrawn. Thereafter, respondent No.4, on 17.07.2025, issued summons to the petitioner to appear before him on 19.07.2025. Respondent No.3 conducted an enquiry on 19.07.2025 and the petitioner also answered all the questions. The present writ petition is filed challenging the summons dated 17.07.2025 issued by respondent No.4 on the ground that the petitioner imported Cashew Nut Pieces/Shoot axis, but it is not the cashew. During the pendency of this writ petition, till now, several developments took place.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has filed a memo along with a copy of the show-cause notice dated 19.09.2025 and the same is placed on record. Relying on the said show-cause notice, learned Standing Counsel would submit that against the import of mis-declared goods by the petitioner vide Bill of Entry No.2745054, dated 19.06.2025 and for violation of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, a show-cause notice has been issued by respondent No.3. She further submits that if the petitioner is able to submit his explanation to the show-cause notice, the respondent authorities will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner also accepted that the petitioner received notice dated 19.09.2025 issued by respondent No.3 Office and they are ready to submit explanation immediately. He requested to direct the respondent No.3 to pass orders at an early date, considering the explanation of petitioner, in view of the fact that the goods involved in this case are perishable in nature.
5. In view of the above factual position, in our considered view, it is appropriate and reasonable to dispose of the writ petition, without going into merits of the case, permitting the petitioner to submit explanation to the show-cause notice dated 19.09.2025, as expeditiously as possible, without waiting for 30 days time given in the show-cause notice. On receipt of the explanation, respondent No.6 shall consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) weeks, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. With the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
