Oral Judgment:

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. As the issues involved as also the material facts relating to, all these Petitions being similar they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The Petitioners in all these Petitions are importers of materials described as “Prime Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coils”. Although the imports are of similar goods it may be stated that each of the Petitioners are independent entities/different importers, however, the supplier of the said goods is a common, foreign exporter namely M/s. Bahru Stainless Steel SDN. BHD., having its address at PTD 4069 (PLO 108), Jalan Rumbia 4, Tanjung Langsat Industrial Complex, 81700 Pasir Gudang, Johor, Malaysia.

3. For convenience, we refer to the facts as set out in the lead Petition, [M/s. Jayesh Metal Corporation v. Union of India (Writ Petition (L) No. 3223 of 2026)]. The prayers in the said Petition are as follows:

                   a. Quash and set aside the Consultation Letter F.No. CUS/APR/MISC/487 /2026-GR-4 dated 28.01.2026

                   b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ directing Respondent No. 3 to assess and issue out-of-charge order in relation to the goods imported vide the Bill of Entry No. 6801335 dated 09.01.2026 (Ex. 'A' to this Petition) and 6802018 dated 09.01.2026 (Ex. 'D' to this Petition) by extending the benefit of the Notification No.46/2011-Cus (S1.No.967(1)).

                   c. Direct the Respondent No. 3 to allow clearance of goods imported vide the Bill of Entry No. 6801335 dated 09.01.2026 (Ex. 'A' to this Petition) and 6802018 dated 09.01.2026 (Ex. 'D'to this Petition);

                   d. Alternately, and without prejudice to the prayers above, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ directing Respondent No. 3 to provisionally assess the imported goods in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 upon furnishment of a bond;

                   e. Direct the Respondents to waive any demurrage / detention charges as may have been incurred in relation to the goods imported vide the Bill ofEntry No. 6801335 dated 09.01.2026 (Ex.'A' to this Petition) and.6802018 dated 09.01.2026 (Ex. 'D'to this Petition).

                   f. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, direct the Respondents to provisionally assess the goods imported vide the Bill of Entry No. 6801335 dated 09.01.2026 (Ex. 'A' to this Petition) and 6802018 dated 09.01.2026 (Ex. 'D' to this Petition) in terms of Section 18 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allow clearance of the same for home consumption;

                   g. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, to grant a stay of the proceedings initiated vide the Consultation Letter F.No. CUS/ APR/MISC/487/2026-GR-4 dated 28.01.2026;

                   h. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, direct the Respondents to clear the goods imported vide the Bill of Entry No. 6801335 dated 09.01.2026 (Ex. 'A' to this Petition) and 6802018 dated 09.01.2026 (Ex. 'D' to this Petition) in terms of Section 18 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for home consumption on such terms and/or conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;

                   i. Grant ad-interim reliefs in terms of Prayer Clauses (f) and (h) above;

                   J. For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

4. On 9th January 2026, the Petitioner filed Bill of Entry No. 6801335 and 6802018 for the import of Prime Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coils (Grades 304L and 316L), supplied by the said Malaysian supplier, availing the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01/06/2011. The goods were assessed to preferential duty under the “Agreement on Trade in Goods under the Framework Agreement on the comprehensive Economic Co-operation between the Republic of India and ASEAN signed on 13th August 2009, executed between the Government of India and the Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which includes Malaysia.

5. On 9th/12th January 2026, the Bill of Entry was assessed to duty, and on 13th January 2026, the Petitioner discharged the customs duty in terms of the said assessment.

6. It is the case of the Petitioner that despite such assessment and payment of duty, Respondent No. 3 failed to grant “Out of Charge” for clearance of the goods for home consumption in terms of Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, resulting in continued detention of the goods.

7. In these circumstances, the Petitioner approached Respondent No. 3, when the Petitioner was informed that the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011- Cus. could not be extended in view of certain internal departmental instructions concerning M/s. Bahru Stainless Steel SDN. BHD. However, the Petitioner contends that no order or communication was issued to it seeking any information or initiating verification proceedings in terms of Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962.

8. Being seriously prejudiced by the non-clearance of the goods, the Petitioner also approached the supplier, M/s. Bahru Stainless SDN. BHD. On 15th January 2026, the said supplier addressed a communication to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, confirming its full cooperation for origin verification (AIFTA) and requesting that no adverse action be taken, and clearance of the goods be facilitated to its importers pending such verification. Prior thereto, by communication dated 30th December 2025, M/s. Bahru Stainless SDN. BHD also furnished to the Petitioner the requisite information and annexures for the purpose of compliance with the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 (CAROTAR).

9. On the aforesaid backdrop, it appears that on 28th January 2026, Respondent No. 4 issued a Consultation Letter to the Petitioners in the context of availment of preferential duty exemption, also making a reference of M/s. Bahru Stainless SDN. BHD., Malaysia. The relevant extract thereof is required to be noted and read thus:

                   “

                   F. No. CUS/APR/MISq487/2()26-GR-4 ~ Date:28-01-2026

                   To,

                   JAYESH METAL CORPORATION (IEC :0301015121)

                   110/112, 3RD

                   MUMBAI~ 400004~

                   Subject: Availment of preferential duty exemption on the basis of Certificate of Origin issued in the name of M /s Bahru Stainless SDN BHD, Malaysia - reg.

                   Gentleman,

                   Please refer to the Bill of Entry No 6801335 and 6802018. dated 09-Jan-26 filed by you wherein preferential rate of duty has been claimed under Notification No. 46/2011- Customs, on the basis of Certificates of Origin (Form AI) issued in the name of M/ s Bahru Stainless SDN BHD, Malaysia.

                   In this regard, your attention is invited to the following relied upon documents, which have been enclosed and form the basis of examination of the present case:

                   i. DRl letter F. No. DRI/MZU/F/INT-05/2016 dated 26.03.2018 and subsequent communication dated 21.04.2023, wherein it was reported that during the verification visit to Malaysia, M/ s Bahru Stainless SDN BHD refused to share documents required for origin verification, rendering verification of originating criteria and value addition infeasible. It was further directed to denial of preferential benefits under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, on the basis of Certificates of Origin (Form AI) issued in the name of M/s Bahru Stainless SDN BHD, Malaysia.

                   ii. Vide letter dated 16.01,2026, this office sought current position of the directions issued by DRI Letter F. No. DRI/MZU/F/INT-05/2016 dated 26.03.2018 and subsequent communications. DRI, MZU, vide their reply dated 19.01.2026 reiterated their earlier position to deny the preferential benefits under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs.

                   iii. CBIC Board letter F. No. 456/25/2014-Cus-V dated 23.02.2018 whereby the Board concurred with the outcome of the DRI verification visit and directed that preferential benefits shall not be allowed in respect of Certificates of Origin issued in the name of M / s. Bahru Stainless SDN BHD), Malaysia, and that necessary action including issuance of show cause notices be taken.

                   iv. CBIC Board letter F. No. 456/06/2014-Cus-V(PL) dated 14.03.2023, reiterating that the decision to deny preferential tariff treatment in respect of imports from Malaysia on the basis of COOs issued to M/s Bahru Stainless SDN BHD continues to hold good, and directing field formations to ensure strict compliance.

                   Your attention is also invited to the provisions of Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962 and Para 16, 17 and 18 of Annexure-III Of Customs Tariff [Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India] Rules, 2009 issued vide Notification 189 of 2009 - Customs - Non Tariff which prescribed the following provisions:

                   i. Section 28DA(1) (iv) of Customs Act, 1962 provides that an importer making claim for preferential rate of duty, in terms of any trade agreement, shall exercise reasonable care as to the accuracy and truthfulness of the information furnished.

                   ii. Section 28DA(2) of Customs Act, 1962 provides that the fact that the importer has submitted a proof of origin issued by an Issuing Authority shall not absolve the importer of the responsibility to exercise reasonable care.

                   iii. Section 28DA(8) of Customs Act, 1962 provides that where the Issuing Authority or exporter or producer, as the case may be, does not furnish information within the specified time or the information furnished by him is not found satisfactory, the proper officer shall disallow the preferential tariff treatment for reasons to be recorded in writing.

                   iv. Section 28DA(11) of Customs Act, 1962 provides that Where the verification under this section establishes non-compliance of the imported goods with the country of origin criteria, the proper officer may reject the preferential tariff treatment to the imports of identical goods from the same producer or exporter, unless sufficient information is furnished to show that identical goods meet the country of origin criteria.

                   v. Para.16 of Annexure-Ill of Customs Tariff [Determination of Origin of Goods. under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member State of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India] Rules, 2009 provides that The importing party may request a retroactive check at random and/ or when it has reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the document or as to the accuracy of the information regarding the true origin of the good in question or of certain parts thereof. The Issuing Authority shall conduct a retroactive check on the producer/exporter's cost statement based on the current cost and prices within a six-months timeframe prior to the date of exportation.

                   vi. Further, para.17 of Annexure-III of abovementioned rules provides that if the importing party is not satisfied with the outcome of the retroactive check, it may, under exceptional circumstances, request verification visits to the exporting party.

                   vii. Para 17 (d) of Annexure-III of abovementioned rules also provides that if the goods are determined to be non-originating, the producer/exporter shall be given thirty days from the date of receipt of the written determination to provide any written comments or additional or additional information regarding the eligibility of the goods for preferential tariff treatment. If the goods are still found to be non- originating, the final written determination issued by the importing party shall be communicated to the Issuing Authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of the comments/additional information from the producer/ exporter.

                   viii. Para 17 (e) of Annexure-III of abovementioned rules also provides that the verification visit process, including the actual visit and the determination whether or not the goods subject to verification is originating, shall be carried out and its results communicated to the Issuing Authority within a maximum period of six months from the date when the verification visit was conducted. While the process of verification is being undertaken, sub-paragraph a(iii) of paragraph 16 shall be applied.

                   ix. Para. 16 (a)(iv) of Annexure-Ill of abovementioned rules also provides that in case of reasonable doubt as to the authenticity or accuracy of the document, the Customs Authority of the importing party may suspend provision of preferential tariff treatment while awaiting the result of verification. However, it may release the goods to the importer subject to any administrative measures deemed necessary, provided that they are not subject to import prohibition or restriction and there is no suspicion of fraud.

                   In view of the above binding instructions and statutory provisions, it prima facie emerges that preferential duty benefit is not admissible in cases where exemption is claimed on the basis of Certificates of Origin issued in the name of M / s. Bahru Stainless SDN BHD, Malaysia.

                   You are, therefore, requested to examine the matter and submit your written submissions, along with documentary evidence, if any, within 07 days, failing which the matter shall be proceeded with further in accordance with law./

                   This communication is issued without prejudice to any action that may be initiated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the relevant exemption notifications, and the rules made thereunder.

                   Digitally signed by Kirtikumar Parmar

                   Date: 28-01-2026

                   14:19:30

                   (Kirti Kumar Parmar)

                   Assistant Commissioner of Customs Appraising Group-IV, Import-I

                   Navi Mumbai

                   Encl: As above

10. It further appears that the Additional Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, Mumbai Customs Zone, addressed a communication dated 16th January 2025 to the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai Zonal Unit, seeking guidance in respect of the pending consignments manufactured by M/s. Bahru Stainless SDN. BHD., Malaysia. A copy of the said communication is annexed to the Petition (at page 133).

11. On the aforesaid premise, the Respondents have declined clearance of the goods to the Petitioners. In these circumstances, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Petitions seeking the reliefs as noted hereinabove.

12. We have heard Mr. Prakash Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. It is his submission that the stand taken by the Respondents is seriously prejudicial to the interests of the Petitioners. He submits that the Petitioners have clearly informed the concerned officials of the department that they are ready and willing to secure the differential duty, if any, by furnishing a Bank Guarantee.

13. Mr. Shah would further submit that such approach ought not to have been adopted by the concerned Custom’s officials qua the said supplier, M/s. Bahru Stainless SDN. BHD., more particularly in view of recent precedents of clearances being granted of the imports from the said supplier. In such context reference is made to the case of “Amanat Steels Pvt. Ltd.”, wherein goods supplied by M/s. Bahru Stainless SDN. BHD., covered under Bill of Entry No. 4031666 dated 22nd August 2025 (page 143 of the paper book), were granted clearance. Mr. Shah has also drawn our attention to another instance, namely of clearance of similar goods imported by one “Merino Inox Engineering Company” under Bill of Entry No. 9397280 dated 25th December 2023, where the supply was again by the said foreign exporter, M/s. Bahru Stainless SDN. BHD. In such context, reliance is placed on a letter dated 1st April 2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, addressed to the concerned authority, permitting clearance of such goods. It is, therefore, Mr. Shah’s submission is to the effect that the Petitioners cannot be subjected to a treatment different from what was accorded in the aforesaid two instances. This more particularly, when the Petitioners are ready and willing to secure the differential duty, if any, by furnishing a Bank Guarantee, denial of clearance of the goods is wholly unjustified.

14. In responding to the Petitioners case Mr. Ochani, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, has vehemently opposed these Petitions. He has relied upon the Consultation Letter, extracts of which are noted hereinabove, to submit that there exist reasonable grounds for the department to raise objections in respect of the supplies made by M/s. Bahru Stainless SDN. BHD. It is his contention that since the Petitioners claim is of preferential duty, such claim is required to be examined strictly in the light of the observations and issues raised in the Consultation Letter. Insofar as the case of Amanat Steels Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, Mr. Ochani submits that clearance was inadvertently granted. As regards Marino Inox Engineering Company, it is contended that the said importer falls under a different Commissionerate, hence the same would not be relevant to the facts of the present case. Mr. Ochani has further placed reliance on the provisions of Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962, in support of the Department’s action.

15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. With their assistance we have also perused the record. In our opinion, provisional clearance of the goods in question would be in the interest of justice, particularly when the Petitioners undertake to secure the differential duty, if any, by furnishing a Bank Guarantee. The following discussion would support our conclusion:

16. It is not in dispute that in respect of the consignments supplied by the same foreign supplier, namely M/s. Bahru Stainless SDN. BHD., clearance of the goods for domestic consumption was granted to Amanat Stainless Steels Pvt. Ltd., as also it was granted to Merino Inox Engineering Company. Whether such clearance was inadvertent or otherwise is not germane to the limited issue before us, suffice it to observe, that there is no material to indicate that such imports in any manner were declared to be not entitled to preferential rate of duty, on the ground of any demand in regard to the said foreign exporter.

17. Further the supplier(foreign exporter) M/s. Bahru Stainless SDN. BHD., has addressed a communication dated 15th January 2026 to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, confirming its full cooperation for verification and certifying the origin of the goods. The said supplier interalia recorded that the Petitioners are entitled to the benefits under the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement entered between the Republic of India and Malaysia. A similar communication, as noted hereinabove, was addressed by the supplier in favour of the Petitioners furnishing requisite origin-related details for compliance with CAROTAR, 2020.

18. In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of any further verification that the Department may undertake under Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by directing provisional clearance of the goods, subject to appropriate safeguards, from considering the provisions of Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962, which prescribe the procedure regarding a claim for preferential rate of duty. We find that sub-section (5) thereof clearly provides that where the preferential rate of duty is suspended under sub-section (4), the proper officer may, upon a request made by the importer, release the goods subject to the importer furnishing security in an amount equal to the difference between the duty provisionally assessed under Section 18 and the preferential duty claimed.

19. In the present case, the Petitioners have unequivocally expressed their willingness to secure the entire differential duty by furnishing a Bank Guarantee. Thus even assuming that further proceedings are required to be undertaken on the basis of any bona fide material that the Department may have against the supplier, and even if the Department is ultimately of the opinion that the Petitioners are disentitled to the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. claimed under the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009 read with CAROTAR, 2020, the Department’s claim would ultimately be for recovery of the full customs duty. Such potential liability if any is, in fact, being adequately secured by the Petitioners through the proposed Bank Guarantee.

20. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that provisional release of the goods would serve the interest of justice. Failing such release, serious prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners, particularly as the goods are incurring demurrage due to continued detention. It is also relevant, that as of date, no adjudicatory proceedings have been initiated by issuance of a show cause notice to any of the Petitioners.

21. We may further observe that, considering the contents of the Consultation Letter(supra) and more particularly the materials as referred therein pertain to the year 2018, it was open to the Department to expeditiously verify the credentials of the supplier, especially in light of the applicable provisions of CAROTAR, 2020, as they relate to imports from Malaysia under the ASEAN- India Trade in Goods Agreement. In the present era of modern modes of communication, it would not have been impossible for the Department to obtain appropriate information within a reasonable time, particularly when issues concerning the said supplier are stated to have been under consideration since the year 2018. However, it appears that from 2018 till date no conclusive material has been gathered, and the impugned action has been taken merely on an apprehension of possible non-cooperation.

22. Thus at such stage, we find no sufficient justification for such approach of the designated officer, when Indian importers seek to avail benefits flowing from international trade arrangements entered by the Government of India. This more particularly when the foreign supplier has bona fide approached not only the concerned departmental authorities but also the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, expressing willingness to fully cooperate in any verification process.

23. Except for the different dates of import and the details of the Bills of Entry and the import documents and details, the material facts necessary for the adjudication of the other Writ Petitions are not different.

24. In these circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that the Petitioners deserve appropriate reliefs on these Writ Petitions. Hence, the following order:

                   ORDER

                   (i) The Respondents are directed to grant provisional release of the goods in question, being the subject matter of the respective Bills of Entry filed by the Petitioners, upon the Petitioners furnishing Bonds and Bank Guarantees securing the differential duty.

                   (ii) The provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 shall be undertaken within a period of ten (10) days from today.

                   (iii) Upon such provisional assessment being made, the Petitioners shall furnish the requisite Bonds and Bank Guarantees securing the differential duty within a period of seven (7) days thereafter.

                   (iv) Upon furnishing of such Bonds and Bank Guarantees in respect of each of the Bills of Entry, the Respondents shall release the goods within a period of seven (7) days therefrom.

                   (v) All contentions of the parties, including the contentions of the Department to initiate and pursue proceedings under Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962 or any other applicable provisions of law, are expressly kept open.

                   (vi) It is clarified that this order is confined to the grant of provisional release and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the rival contentions.

26. All the Writ Petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.