2026 (8) TMI 740

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....530 dated 07.09.2025. 2. The petitioner states that he is a manufacturer of various goods and had imported a consignment of plastic spare parts under the said Bill of Entry. The consignment arrived at Chennai Seaport and the Bill of Entry was filed on 07.09.2025. The goods were detained by the Customs authorities on the ground that the petitioner had mis-declared the goods. According to the department, the goods imported were plastic spares for lighters/lighter spare parts. The department further took the view that the goods fall under Chapter 96 of the Customs Tariff Act and not under Chapter 13, and therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay Basic Customs Duty at 10% instead of 5%. The petitioner thereafter filed an application seekin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on Nos.15/2023 and 36/2024-25, that there was a misdeclaration and that the investigation was still pending. According to the department, release of the goods at this stage may prejudice the investigation and defeat the enforcement of the import policy. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, produced an official memorandum dated 26.06.2025 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government, authorising the petitioner to import goods described as "Employ Plastic Shell and Spare Parts for manufacturing of Gas Lighter with Plastic Holder Tray". The said description appears to correspond with the nature of the goods imported by the petitioner. 8. Whether the goods imported by the petitioner are covered by the said authorisat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3. In the present case, the petitioner has paid duty at 5%, whereas the department has taken the view that the goods are liable to duty at 10%. The question of the actual differential duty payable is yet to be decided in the adjudication proceedings. 14. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the interest of the revenue can be protected by imposing appropriate conditions for provisional release. There is no need to keep the goods under detention until the completion of the adjudication proceedings. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the third respondent is set aside. The third respondent is directed to release the subject goods provisionally, subject to the fol....