Arasu Texports Vs Addl. Commissioner of Customs (gr.3) (Madras High Court)
In Madras High Court, the writ petition challenged an order-in-original dated 30.10.2024 that confiscated the petitioner’s imported goods and imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 under the Customs Act. The petitioner contended that the imports were made under a Special Advance Authorization issued by the Assistant DGFT, Coimbatore, and therefore customs duty was not payable. It was argued that the reliance placed by the customs authorities on DGFT Notification No.77/2023 concerning Minimum Import Price was misplaced, as the notification was either inapplicable to Special Advance Authorization imports or not in force on the date of filing the Bill of Entry (23.09.2024). The petitioner also submitted that the impugned action prevented timely release of the goods for improvement and re-export to a wholesale buyer in the U.S.A. within the prescribed 18-month period from the authorization date (09.09.2024).
The respondents filed a counter affidavit reiterating the impugned order and asserting that differential duty based on Minimum Import Price was payable. They further contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as a statutory appeal remedy existed.
On examination, the Court noted that the core contention—that goods imported under a Special Advance Authorization are not liable to customs duty—had not been considered in the impugned order. Despite a detailed representation by the petitioner, including reliance on a Customs Notification dated 01.04.2023 and relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy (particularly paragraph 4.04A), the authority failed to address these submissions. The Court observed that the order-in-original did not deal with the petitioner’s explanations and thus lacked reasons.
