1. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of wholesale/distribution and manufacturing of various kinds of consumer electronics.

2. As part of its business, the petitioner used to import goods from abroad. The petitioner is also a small enterprise duly registered under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, as evidenced by Ext.P1 Udyam Registration. In the ordinary course of business, the petitioner imported 1720 units of Flashlights which according to the petitioner fell under the subheading 851310 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. Ext.P2 is the shipping documents in relation to the same. On 18.09.2025, the petitioner filed a bill of entry with the Customs, seeking clearance of the consignment, supported by the necessary documents including invoice, airway bill and the license issued by the 3rd respondent Bureau of Indian Standards. Ext.P3 is the bill of entry and Ext.P4 is the license issued by the 3rd respondent.

3. However, despite the payment of duty as declared by the petitioner in the bill of entry, the goods were not released by the Customs authorities on the reason that, the product does not conforms to the standards prescribed in Flashlight Quality Control Order 2025 notified on 21.01.2025. In such circumstances, as there was delay in clearing the goods, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking clearance of the goods and also for declaring that the goods are not covered by the Flashlight Quality Control Order. The petitioner also also sought the waiver or mitigation of undue demurrage charges.

4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Joint Commissioner of Customs issued order No.325/2025-26 on 28.10.2025, ordering confiscation of the goods and imposing a redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-under Section 112(a), and permitting only re-export. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner amended the writ petition by producing the documents as Ext.P6. As per the releifs sought in the amended writ petition, the petitioner also seeks to challenge Ext.P6 order as well.

5. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents 1 and 2 defending the findings entered in Ext.P6. The 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit.

6. I have heard Sri.Aswin Gopakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.Gireeshkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. Manoj Ramaswamy the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

7. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Ext.P6 was issued without following the statutory stipulations contained in Section 124 of the Customs Act, which contemplates for a show cause notice before issuing an order of confiscation. On going through Ext.P6 order, I find that, evidently, no show cause notice as contemplated under Section 124 of the Act was issued to the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to submit its objection to the proposal for confiscation. It is to be noted that Section 124 (a) specifically provides for notice in writing with the prior approval of the officer of the Customs not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Customs, informing the person concerned, of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty. Sub-section (b) of Section 124 contemplates for giving an opportunity to the person concerned for making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein. Sub-section (c) thereof provides for a reasonable opportunity of being heard as well.

8. However, it is discernible from Ext.P6 order that, the petitioner was never issued with a show-cause notice as contemplated under Sub-Section (a) and no opportunity for making representation in writing as contemplated under Sub-Section (b) was granted. Of course, it is true that as pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, proviso to Section 124 contemplates that the notice referred to in Clause (a) and the representation referred to in Clause (b), can be oral, at the request of the person concerned. However, in Ext.P6 order, there is no reference of any request being made by the petitioner herein, for issuance of an oral notice. In the absence of any such reference in the impugned order, under no circumstances the proceedings that culminated in Ext.P6 order can be upheld. In the counter affidavit also there is no case for the respondents 1 and 2 that show-cause notice as referred to in Section 124 (b) was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, on that reason an interference is required.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various other contentions regarding the sustainability of the classification in Ext.P6 order and also as against the finding that, the Quality Control Order notified on 21.01.2025 was applicable to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, even going by the averments of the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit filed, Ext.P3 license obtained by the petitioner is sufficient to meet the requirements for classifying the articles as disclosed by the petitioner in the bill of entry. It is also a case of the petitioner that, since the petitioner being an establishment coming under the Micro Small and Medium enterprises, quality control notification referred to above cannot be made applicable to such firm, as certain relaxations were granted for compliance with the said Quality Control Order, up to 21.10.2025. Therefore, since the transaction in this case took place prior to such cut off date, the conditions in the Quality Control Order cannot be made applicable to the petitioner, it was pointed out.

10. However, as far as the dispute regarding the classification and applicability of the Quality Control Orders are concerned, those are matters to be considered by the authority concerned, since this Court has already found that Ext.P6 order passed was without following the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 124 of the Customs Act. Therefore, I am of the view that, the matter will have to be re-considered by the competent authority.

                  In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P6 order with a direction to the competent authority under the Department of Customs to re-consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. Such an order shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All the contentions raised by the petitioner are kept open. Since it is an Air Cargo, which is lying in the custody of the respondents since 08.09.2021 every step shall be taken by the respondents to ensure that the decision is taken within the period stipulated above.