The Madras High Court has permitted M/s Yashi Fashion to re-export seized imported fabrics, holding that continued retention of goods serves no useful purpose once investigation has progressed and samples have already been tested.
The bench of Justice Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that observed that the goods had remained under seizure for over a year, samples had already been drawn and tested, and no useful purpose would be served by continued detention of the goods
The petitioner, M/s Yashi Fashion, had imported fabrics which were subsequently seized by the authorities on allegations of misclassification and violation of Minimum Import Price (MIP) conditions under the Customs Act, 1962. The seizure was carried out under Section 110 of the Act, based primarily on test reports issued by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL).
The petitioner challenged the seizure memo, test reports, and provisional release order issued by authorities including the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and customs officials.
The petitioner contended that the allegations were based solely on laboratory reports without corroborative material and that the goods had been lying under seizure for an extended period, resulting in deterioration of value. It was also argued that the fabrics were design-specific and season-sensitive, and prolonged detention would render them commercially unusable.
The petitioner sought permission to re-export the goods under Section 69 of the Customs Act, especially since overseas suppliers had requested diversion of goods to alternate buyers.
The Court also took note that even the revenue authorities did not strongly oppose the request for re-export, though they insisted on safeguards such as execution of bond and furnishing of bank guarantee.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the authorities to permit re-export of the seized goods subject to execution of a bond covering the differential duty amount, furnishing of a bank guarantee equivalent to 5% of the re-determined value, and completion of re-export within 12 days upon compliance.
The Court thus struck a balance between safeguarding revenue interests and preventing undue hardship to the importer due to prolonged seizure.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s.Yashi Fashion Versus The Secretary Revenue
Citation: JURISHOUR-1029-HC-2026(Ker)Â
Case No.: WP No.3817 of 2026
Date: 28-04-2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Saurabh Kapoor
Counsel For Respondent: SU.Srinivasan
Read More: RBI Issues Final Directions on Relief Measures in Areas Affected by Natural Calamities
