Madras High Court
B.Sivaramakrishnan vs The Additional Commissioner on 23 March, 2026
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025
and
W.M.P. Nos.49013, 49016, 49017, 51756, 51757 and 51758 of 2025
B.Sivaramakrishnan
Proprietor of M/s.Balaji Enterprises,
No.67, Shop No.5, Audaippa Naicken Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Commissioner
of Customs (Chennai-III),
Preventive Commissionerate, Custom House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
2. The Chemical Examiner Grade-1,
Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL),
Custom House Laboratory, Custom House,
60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
..Respondent(s)
W.P. No.46403 of 2025:
Shri Murugula Shabbir Shaik
Proprietor of M/s.SMR Infra,
No.11-1-46/1A, Opposite Medical Hall,
Santhosh Nagar, Kandukur,
Andhra Pradesh-523 105.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Chennai III Commissionerate, Custom House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
2. The Chemical Examiner Grade-I,
Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL),
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025
Custom House Laboratory, Custom House,
60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-01.
..Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan
in both cases
For Respondent(s): Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil
in both cases Senior Panel Counsel
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned orders dated 29.10.2025 and 04.11.2025 issued by the 1st respondent whereby the goods imported vide bills of Entry Nos.6219803 dated 19.10.2024 and 6948609 dated 29.11.2024 were confiscated and penalty was imposed under Section 112(a), 112 (a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Petitioner in W.P.No.43908 of 2025 is engaged in the business of import and trading of animal feel and petitioner in W.P.No.46403 of 2025 is engaged in the import and trading of agricultural rejected nuts which are meant to be used as animal feed classifiable under the Head 2308 0000. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SIIB) obtained a clarification from ICAR-Directorate of Cashew Research (DCR), without petitioners’ knowledge and on the strength of such clarification sought to classify the goods under CTH 0801 3210 by treating the goods imported as Cashew Kernels.
__________ Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025
3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the classification by the revenue authorities suffers from error apparent from the face of the record inasmuch as the imported goods are meant to be used as animal feed. At this stage, it may be relevant to note that there is a test report wherein it has been found that the products are not fit for use as animal feed on the basis that there is presence of unpleasant rancid odour. It is the case of the petitioners that the copy of the report by ICAR was not furnished. Apparently, it is stated that the report would suggest that the products contain pathogens and unfit for human consumption or as animal feed.
4. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner in W.P.No.43908 of 2025 filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16596 of 2025 wherein this Court vide order dated 16.05.2025 directed the Customs Department to send the samples for re-testing to an accredited laboratory to determine if they fall under the category of animal feed. Petitioner in W.P.No.46403 of 2025 filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11142 of 2025, praying to quash the communication issued by the 1st respondent dated 19.03.2025 and further sought release of the goods covered by Bills of Entry Nos.6463300 dated 02.11.2024 and 2948609 dated 29.11.2024. This Court vide order dated 16.05.2024 in W.M.P.No.12577 of 2025 directed the Deputy Commissioner Customs (SIIB), to send the goods for re-test to an accredited laboratory.
__________ Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025
5. Pursuant thereto, the consignments in question were tested by CRCL wherein reports dated 12.06.2025 has been furnished stating that the goods had rancid odour and are unfit for human consumption. This, the learned counsel for petitioner would submit suffers from error apparent inasmuch as it is never the case of petitioners that these are imports which are meant for human consumption but are meant to be used as animal feed. While so, an interim order came to be passed by this Court on 06.1.2026 in W.P.No.46403 of 2025, the relevant portions of the same is extracted hereunder:
“3. This Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the clarification sought for by the petitioner as prayed for in W.M.P. No. 51758 of 2025 is clarified by the second respondent laboratory pursuant to the test report dated 12.06.2025 submitted by them. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prayer sought for by the petitioner in the main writ petition and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents to raise all objections in the main writ petition, this Court directs the second respondent to clarify whether the goods covered under the bill of entry No.6948609 dated 29.11.2024 satisfies the criteria of animal feed in terms of Indian Standards or not.
4. The second respondent is directed to pass a clarification order as directed supra on or before the next hearing date of this writ petition. This interim direction is issued without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents to raise all objections in the main writ petition.
5. Post the matter for filing of counter in the main writ __________ Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025 petition as well as for compliance of this interim order on 10.02.2026.”
6. Pursuant to the above directions of this Court, a report has now been submitted wherein the CRCL has clarified that the sample received in the form of mixture of fragments of plumules, nuts of assorted sizes have unpleasant rancid odour. This according to the learned counsel for respondents would render the products unfit for use as animal consumption inasmuch as Clause 4.1. (General Requirements) of IS 2052:2023 mandates that compounded cattle feed shall be free from fungal growth, insect infestation and fermented, musty, rancid or any other objectionable odour.
7. This according to the petitioner would suffer from contradiction when contrasted with another report submitted by the very same lab, wherein the said lab has stated that they do not have facility to determine whether a particular product is fit for being used as animal feed or otherwise. The relevant portions of the same is extracted hereunder:
“5. In response, CRCL, Chennai, vide clarification letter dated 16.01.2026, has informed as under:
i) The Custom House Laboratory, Chennai, is not equipped with microbiological testing facilities to determine whether the goods are infested with pathogens.
ii) The laboratory does not have facilities to test aflatoxin levels, and consequently, it cannot opine on the safety of the goods __________ Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025 for animal consumption.
6. In view of the above, it is evident that while CRCL has reported on the physical characteristics and limited chemical parameters, it has categorically stated its inability to test critical parameters such as pathogen infestation and aflatoxin levels, which are relevant for determining suitability for animal consumption under the declared heading.”
8. It is thus the case of the petitioner that CRCL ought not to have carried out testing when it was conscious that it does not have the requisite infrastructure to carry out full fledged test and report as to whether the product in question has to be used as animal feed or otherwise. He would submit that the truncated report cannot be sustained.
9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by the petitioner that since there are certain doubts raised and contradictory views expressed by the very same laboratory, this Court is inclined to refer the matter for re-testing by one of the seven accredited laboratories viz.,:
i) Chennai Testing Laboratory Private Limited (CTL)
ii) CVR Labs Private Limited
iii) Chennai Mettexlab Pvt. Ltd.
iv)Hubert Enviro Care Systems Limited (HECS)
v) Scientific Food Testing Services (SFTS lab) __________ Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025
vi) Neoscience Labs Private Limited and
vii) Tamil Nadu Test House Private Limited (TNTH)
10. It is for the respondent authorities to decide which of the seven laboratories would be approached for the purpose of re-testing, the same shall be duly intimated to the petitioner. The samples for testing shall be drawn in the presence of the petitioner and charges shall be paid by the petitioners for re- testing. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Post these matters on 24.04.2026.
23-03-2026 MKA __________ Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025 To:
1. The Additional Commissioner, of Customs (Chennai-III), Preventive Commissionerate, Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
2. The Chemical Examiner Grade-1, Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), Custom House, Laboratory Custom House, 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
__________ Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.
MKA W.P. Nos.43908 and 46403 of 2025 23-03-2026 __________ Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis