Case law
Judgments from CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court, each summarised and linked to the provisions it applies.
Judgments powered by Indian Kanoon.
Madras High Court · 21 Sep 2026
The Commissioner Of Customs (Imports) vs M/S Prakruthi Traders,
Legal principle
Customs cannot keep imported goods indefinitely on mere suspicion without seizure or recorded reasons, and for food imports samples must be drawn by the authorised officer under the FSS Act, read with Section 144 of the Customs Act.
Court decision
The writ appeal by Customs was dismissed. The order for provisional release (temporary release before the case is decided) stands, and the officer may ask for a personal bond covering differential duty or penalty. Assessment and adjudication (the formal decision on duty and classification) must start immediately. Classification is left for the adjudicating authority to decide by law.
Facts
M/s Prakruthi Traders filed a bill of entry on 21.01.2026 for roasted areca nut splits, declared under CTH 2008 19 91. Customs did not seize the goods but did not release them either, and sent samples for testing. The first test, on a sample drawn by a customs officer, said the goods were not fit for human consumption. A second sample, drawn by an officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, was found to meet the standards. Both reports showed moisture below 10%. The importer filed a writ petition, and on 28.07.2026 a single judge ordered provisional release and assessment. Customs appealed to a Division Bench.
Key provisions
- Section 144, Customs Act, 1962 — Power to take samples