Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Order Date: 16 July 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: M/s Mitro Enterprises, represented by its proprietor Sridhar Deshpands, Bangalore.
- Respondents: 1) The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo), New Customs House, Meenambakkam, Chennai; 2) The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, Chennai; 3) The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Group (1‑4), New Customs House, Chennai.
- Goods Imported: Herbal Classic Menthol, original herbal product (charcoal filter), tobacco‑free, nicotine‑free sticks made of tea leaves, imported from Korea via Chennai Customs Airport.
- Initial Classification: Declared under Customs Tariff Heading 30049011 (Chapter 30) in Bill of Entry dated 22‑05‑2023 (assessable value Rs 8,99,640) and again on 25‑05‑2023 (assessable value Rs 17,99,280).
- Assessing Officer’s Re‑classification: After sample analysis, re‑classified under CTH 24029090 (Chapter 24) and imposed a penalty of Rs 15,000 under Section 117 of the Customs Act.
- First Appeal: Before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Order dated 10‑07‑2024 partially allowed the appeal – upheld classification under Chapter 24‑CTH 24029010 but set aside the penalty.
- Writ Petition (W.P.No.20422 of 2024): Filed seeking provisional release of the goods kept in a Customs Bonded Warehouse, alleging erroneous classification. The High Court on 09‑09‑2024 directed the petitioner to apply for provisional release with a bank guarantee and bond, and directed the Customs Department to adjudicate duty exemption expeditiously.
- Statutory Appeal to CESTAT: The petitioner filed an appeal before the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) with a 144‑day delay. CESTAT dismissed the condonation petition, stating the cause of delay was merely an excuse and did not satisfy its criteria:
1. Cause beyond the party’s control;
2. No negligence;
3. Due diligence shown;
4. No sleeping over rights.
- High Court’s Observations: The court noted that the CESTAT’s criteria are illustrative, not exhaustive, but found the petitioner’s explanation unsatisfactory. It also examined the maintainability of the writ petition, emphasizing that a statutory remedy under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 exists and must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances (lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, ultra‑vires provision) are present.
- Precedents Cited: Thiruchitrambalam Projects Ltd. v. CESTAT, Metal Weld Electrodes v. CESTAT, Rajkumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, DoE, Seth Chand Ratan v. Pandit Durga Prasad, and Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax & Others v. Commercial Steel Ltd.
- Court’s Conclusion on Maintainability: The petition did not fall within the exceptional circumstances; the delay in filing the statutory appeal was not justified; no breach of fundamental right or natural justice was evident.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
- The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Topics: Customs Classification, Writ Petition