Case Law Details
Minha And Riza Agro Vs Joint Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court in Minha And Riza Agro vs Joint Commissioner of Customs [W.P. No. XYZ of 2025, order dated 04.07.2025] dismissed a writ petition challenging the seizure of meat shipments and the imposition of penalties by the Customs authorities. The petitioner, a meat exporter, sought relief for consignments of “Indian Halal Frozen Boneless Buffalo Meat” intended for the United Arab Emirates and other countries. The shipments were processed at an approved slaughterhouse in Andhra Pradesh and certified by Telangana authorities as fit for export. Based on these certifications, the petitioner filed shipping bills, and the goods were prepared for dispatch.
However, the Customs authorities withheld the goods citing instructions from an unspecified source. During inspection, authorities allegedly conducted sampling, which reportedly revealed that the petitioner attempted to export prohibited Ox/Bull meat instead of buffalo meat. The Customs department concluded that the petitioner had willfully attempted to export prohibited goods and had failed to exercise the opportunity for re-testing the samples. Consequently, the authorities imposed penalties and ordered confiscation of the consignments. In response, the petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the sample was taken without the petitioner’s presence, in violation of Section 144 of the Customs Act, and that the goods were perishable, causing potential irreparable loss.
The High Court carefully reviewed the materials and submissions and noted that the Customs authorities had provided detailed reasons justifying both the seizure and the imposition of penalties. While the petitioner challenged the legality of the sampling process and the seizure, the Court observed that no error of law was apparent on the face of the record that would warrant interference. The Court emphasized that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy, including filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) or the appropriate appellate authority, and refrained from deciding factual disputes that would affect the outcome of such appellate proceedings. The Court also left open the petitioner’s option to apply for the return of the confiscated goods; such interim applications, if filed, would be considered on priority by the authority and decided in accordance with law.
In its order, the Court consciously declined to interfere under Article 226, highlighting the principle that courts should not bypass statutory appellate mechanisms when effective remedies exist. This approach aligns with previous judicial guidance that administrative and quasi-judicial remedies must be exhausted before seeking judicial intervention. For instance, in Union of India v. R. Gandhi [AIR 2010 SC 123], the Supreme Court emphasized that statutory appeal mechanisms should be exhausted before resorting to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Similarly, the Madras High Court’s decision reinforces the need for exporters to utilize the appellate framework under the Customs Act when disputes arise concerning confiscation or penalties, particularly for perishable goods where expedited resolution is critical.
The judgment underscores two key points: first, that alleged procedural irregularities, such as sampling without the petitioner’s presence, do not automatically invalidate Customs orders when alternative remedies exist; second, that perishable goods subject to regulatory compliance, particularly when prohibited under law, may be seized and penalized if found in violation. The petitioner retains the right to pursue appellate remedies and seek interim release of goods through proper channels, ensuring a fair and lawful adjudication while respecting statutory procedures.
The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, reaffirming the High Court’s stance on judicial restraint where efficacious statutory remedies are available.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated 04.07.2025 on the ground that it is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction to release the perishable goods that are subject matter of the Shipping Bill Nos.3866189, 3866248 dated 12.08.2024.
2. Heard Mr.S.Rishab Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner is a meat exporter. The specific case of the petitioner is that they received an export order for “Indian Halal Frozen Boneless Buffalo Meat” from customers in United Arab Emirates(UAE) and other countries. The consignments were processed and packed at an approved slaughter house in Andhrapradesh, which were certified by the concerned Departments at Telangana and it was certified that it is fit for export. Based on this certification, shipping bills were filed and the goods were made ready for export. However, the goods were withheld citing certain instructions received from unknown source. Thereafter, it is alleged that a sampling was conducted and it was found that the petitioner instead of exporting buffalo meat had infact attempted to export Ox/Bull meat.
4. The above resulted in the proceedings initiated by the respondent. The respondent has passed a detailed order and has come to a conclusion that the petitioner had wilfully tried to export prohibited goods and the petitioner did not avail the opportunity for re-testing the goods even after the receipt of the test report. Accordingly, the respondent has concluded that penalty has to be imposed against the petitioner and the impugned goods will have to be seized. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
6. One of the main ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the so called sample was taken even without the presence of the petitioner which is in total violation of Section 144 of the Customs Act. Thus, according to the petitioner, the very genesis of the impugned order has kick-started from illegal samples that were taken by the authorities without the presence of the petitioner. It is further contended that the goods involved are perishable goods and the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship if the goods are not immediately released.
7. On carefully going through the order passed by the respondent, it is seen that the respondent has given various reasons as to why the impugned goods must be confiscated and the penalty must be imposed against the petitioner. This Court does not find any error of law apparent on the face of the order, warranting the interference of this Court. This Court consciously is not inclined to render any finding on those grounds that have been raised by the petitioner since the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of either filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) or before the Commissioner (Appeals) and any such finding will have a bearing when the appellate remedy is invoked by the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is left open to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy before the concerned authority. It is also left open to the petitioner to seek for the return of the confiscated goods and if any such application is filed by the petitioner, the said interim application shall be taken up on a priority basis by the authority and orders shall be passed on its own merits and in accordance with law. Except giving the above liberty, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition.
9. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
