Provisional Release Under Section 110A Customs Act | Mandamus For Detained Imports : Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has clarified the scope of provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that detention of imported goods for want of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification or Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) authorization does not preclude their conditional release. The judgment reinforces the principle that provisional release is an interim measure, subject to final adjudication, and cannot be withheld indefinitely on procedural grounds.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, M/s. SRK Overseas and M/s. Kutty Impex, imported second-hand digital multifunction printing, copying, and scanning machines (MFDs) into India. The Customs Department detained 56 and 237 units respectively under Bill of Entry No. 6702484 dated 05.01.2026 and Bill of Entry No. 6789839 dated 09.01.2026, citing non-compliance with two statutory requirements:

• Absence of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification
• Lack of authorization from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT)

The petitioners sought provisional release of the detained goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that the detention was unjustified in the absence of final adjudication.

Procedural History

The dispute followed a precedent set by the same court:

• 10.07.2025: A batch of similar writ petitions (W.P. No. 29418 of 2024) was disposed of with directions for provisional release of identical goods.
• 27.01.2026: The present petitions were filed seeking identical relief, relying on the earlier judgment as a binding precedent.

Relief Sought

The petitioners prayed for a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the Customs Department to:

1. Provisionally release the detained MFDs under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Impose conditions for release as deemed fit by the authorities.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the court was whether the Customs Department could withhold provisional release of imported goods under Section 110A solely on the ground of missing BIS certification or DGFT authorization, without first conducting a final adjudication under the Customs Act, 1962.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

The petitioners contended that:

• Section 110A empowers the Customs Department to provisionally release seized goods pending final adjudication, subject to conditions.
• The absence of BIS/DGFT certifications did not justify indefinite detention, as these were procedural requirements that could be fulfilled post-release.
• The earlier judgment in W.P. No. 29418 of 2024 established a binding precedent for provisional release in similar cases.

For the Respondents

The Customs Department argued that:

• BIS certification and DGFT authorization were mandatory prerequisites for the import of electronic goods under Foreign Trade Policy and Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
• Provisional release could not be granted without compliance with these statutory requirements, as it would undermine regulatory oversight.
• The goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, for violation of import regulations.

The Court's Analysis

The Madras High Court relied on its earlier judgment in W.P. No. 29418 of 2024 to hold that provisional release under Section 110A is an interim measure and not a final determination of rights. The court emphasized the following principles:

1. Provisional Release is Not Conditional on Full Compliance The court observed that Section 110A does not mandate compliance with all statutory requirements as a precondition for release. Instead, it allows the Customs Department to impose conditions to ensure the goods are not misused or diverted pending final adjudication.

   "The purpose of provisional release is to balance the interests of the importer with the regulatory concerns of the state. It is not a final adjudication, and the Customs Department retains the power to reverse its decision upon final determination."

2. Detention Cannot Be Indefinite The court held that indefinite detention of goods without final adjudication would violate the principles of natural justice and proportionality. The Customs Department was directed to complete the adjudication process expeditiously.

3. Precedent Binding Nature The court noted that the earlier judgment in W.P. No. 29418 of 2024 was directly applicable, as it involved identical facts and legal issues. The Customs Department was bound to follow the precedent unless distinguishing circumstances existed.

4. Conditions for Release The court clarified that the Customs Department could impose reasonable conditions for provisional release, such as:

   • Furnishing a bank guarantee or security deposit.
   • Undertaking to comply with BIS/DGFT requirements within a stipulated timeframe.
   • Restrictions on the sale or transfer of the goods pending final adjudication.

The Verdict

The Madras High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the Customs Department to:

1. Pass orders for provisional release of the detained goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, within four weeks from the date of the order.
2. Impose conditions for release as deemed fit by the authorities.
3. Release the goods to the petitioners within two weeks of fulfilling the conditions.
4. Ensure that the provisional release does not prejudice the final adjudication under the Customs Act, 1962.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Provisional Release is Not Automatic, But Detention Must Be Justified

The judgment reinforces that provisional release under Section 110A is not a matter of right but a discretionary relief. However, the Customs Department cannot withhold release indefinitely without final adjudication. Practitioners should:

• Argue for conditional release even in cases of missing certifications or authorizations.
• Highlight the precedent value of this judgment in similar disputes.
• Ensure that conditions imposed are reasonable and proportionate to the regulatory concerns.

Final Adjudication Remains Unaffected

The court clarified that provisional release does not preclude the Customs Department from:

• Conducting a final adjudication under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
• Confiscating the goods or imposing penalties under Section 111 if violations are established.
• Reversing the provisional release order if the importer fails to comply with the conditions.

Compliance Can Be Post-Release

Importers facing detention for want of BIS/DGFT certifications can now:

• Seek provisional release with an undertaking to obtain the required certifications within a stipulated period.
• Avoid prolonged detention, which can cause financial losses and operational disruptions.
• Ensure that the conditions for release are documented in writing to avoid future disputes.