WP/32475/2022 of M/s.Perfect Trading Company Vs The Commissioner of Customs,
W.P. No.32475 of 2022
__________
Page 1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P. No.32475 of 2022
M/s.Perfect Trading Company
Represented by its Proprietor,
Shri.Naresh Kumar, Shop No.3,
WZ-32, Asaltpur, Jankapuri, New Delhi - 110 058.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai IV Commissionerate, Custom House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SIIB),
Chennai-III, Commissionerate, Custom House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
3. The Additional Commissioner of Customs,
SEZ-ACC, O/o.The Principal Commissioner of
Customs, New Custom HOuse,
Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027.
4. M/s.Timescan Logistics (India) Pvt.Ltd.,
Survey No.434/b(Part), JMatadee FTWZ SEZ,
Mannur Village, Kancheepuram - 602 105.
5. Hyundai Merchant Marine India Pvt ltd.,
Ega Trade Centre, 3rd Floor,
Door No.318(Old No.809),
Poonamalle High Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai - 600 010.
(WP IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED WITH
RESPECT TO R5 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.03.2026
MADE IN WP.32470/2022 BY MSQJ)
..Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.32475 of 2022
__________
Page 2 of 7
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the re cords pertaining
to the impugned letter dated 02.11.2022 in F.No.Misc.80/2022-SIIB issued by
the 2 nd respondent and quash the same, and direct the 2 nd respondent to issue
waiver certificate for waiver of demurrage and detention charges till the goods
are re-exported.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Derrick Sam
For Respondent(s): Mr.Rajendran Raghavan
Senior Standing Counsel (for R1 to R3)
Mr.A.Mohammed Ismail (for R4)
Mr.S.Vasudevan (for R5)
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned letter dated
02.11.2022, whereby petitioner’s request for waiver of demurrages until the
goods are made available for clearance was rejected.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the i mpugned
orders are challenged on the ground that the order of rejection of pet itioner's
request for waiver of demurrages does not assign any reasons, therefore it may
not be necessary to get into the facts in great detail except to state the following:
a. Petitioner filed an SEZ Bill of Entry 2005430 for clearance of goods
i.e., “mini tower computer case with power supply accessories”. The su bject
goods were imported from M/s.Leading Nations (Group) Limited, Hong Kong,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.32475 of 2022
__________
Page 3 of 7
on 17.03.2020. On 06.03.2020, goods were examined by the Officers of the 2 nd
respondent and it was found that the said container contained “used/ old mini
tower computer cases with motherboard/ system board”.
b. On 18.03.2020, the petitioner had taken up the issue with foreign
supplier, who had sent a letter clarifying that the said containe r was intended to
be shipped to a different buyer and the same was wrongly shipped to the
petitioner. Thereafter, the foreign supplier had requested the peti tioner to send
the container.
c. The 3 rd respondent had adjudicated the issue and passed the order-in-
original No.526/2020-AIR, wherein he had permitted the petitioner to re -export
the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.4,20,000/- under Section 125 of
the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section
112(a) of the Customs Act. 1962.
d. On 09.10.2020, petitioner preferred an appeal and paid redemption fine
and penalty vide TR6 Challan No.000017. Pursuant thereto, 2 nd respondent had
issued detention certificate recommending waiver of demurrage and de tention
charges for the period 27.02.2020 to 16.10.2020. The Commissioner Appeals
passed the order-in-Appeal No.83/2021 dated 26.02.2021 wherein he had
rejected the re-export granted by the 3rd respondent and confiscated the goods.
3. According to the petitioner, order of the appellate authority dire cting
confiscation in the appeal filed by petitioner challenging the redem ption fine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.32475 of 2022
__________
Page 4 of 7
and penalty was without jurisdiction. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Tribunal vide order dated 10.02.2022, wherein the Tribunal had set
aside the order-in-appeal and permitted the goods to be re-exported and had also
set aside the fine and penalty.
4. Learned counsel for 4th respondent would submit that they are
warehousing unit inside SEZ and therefore question of waiver of any
demurrages payable to them in terms of Handling of Cargo and Customs Area
Regulation, 2009, may not even be applicable.
5. To a pointed question as to whether these issues have been examined
while considering petitioner’s request for waiver of demurrages, this Court finds
that the learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents would only place
reliance on the counter, which does not appear to address these issues.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ
petition with the following directions:
i) The impugned order dated 02.11.2022 is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration.
ii) It is open to the petitioner to submit their response by tr eating the
impugned orders as show cause notice(s) within a period of 2 weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.32475 of 2022
__________
Page 5 of 7
iii) It is open to the 4 th respondent to explain as to how they may not fall
within the purview of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009,
and thus no waiver certificate could be issued in respect of the demurrages
which may be charged by them from the petitioner by submitting its response
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) If any such representation/ response is submitted by petitioner/4t h
respondent, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be pa ssed
by the authorities concerned, in accordance with law within a per iod of four
weeks thereafter.
v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case and the concerned authority shall decide the mat ters on its
own merits and in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
06-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MKA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.32475 of 2022
__________
Page 6 of 7
To:
1.The Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai IV Commissionerate, Custom House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SIIB),
Chennai-III, Commissionerate, Custom House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
3.The Additional Commissioner of Customs,
SEZ-ACC, O/o.The Principal Commissioner of Customs,
New Custom HOuse, Meenambakkam,
Chennai - 600 027.
4.M/s.Timescan Logistics (India) Pvt.Ltd.,
Survey No.434/b(Part), JMatadee FTWZ SEZ,
Mannur Village, Kancheepuram - 602 105.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.32475 of 2022
__________
Page 7 of 7
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.
MKA
W.P. No.32475 of 2022
06-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis