Maheshwar Flooring Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
Maheshwar Flooring Industries Limited (petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking to prevent Customs authorities (respondents 1-4) and Ocean Network Express (respondent 5) from allowing the entry of two consignments (B/L Nos. ONEYSING08933400 and ONEYSING08934500) into India. The petitioner claimed these consignments were unauthorized "return shipments" from Singapore, falsely listed the petitioner as the consignee/importer, and were sent without the petitioner's knowledge or consent. The petitioner had previously exported PVC flooring granules to a Singapore buyer, and these consignments were allegedly returned. The petitioner disowned the consignments and sought to avoid any liability for customs duty, demurrage, or other charges, requesting the goods be returned to the shipper and their import declared illegal.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was misconceived and dismissed it. The Court noted that while the petitioner had exported goods to a Singapore party, this party was not impleaded as a necessary party. The Court observed that the pleadings suggested the consignment was returned by the Singapore party, but the petitioner failed to clarify the situation regarding the export bill. The Court emphasized that once the petitioner disowned the consignment, the necessary consequences under the Customs Act, 1962, would follow. Specifically, the Court referred to Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides a procedure for goods not cleared, warehoused, or transshipped within thirty days. The Court found that granting the relief sought would violate Sections 30 and 31 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court also stated that if the petitioner had grievances concerning the Singapore party, it could pursue available legal remedies. Therefore, no case was made out for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing Customs authorities to prohibit the entry of the specified consignments into India, and refuse entry inwards, import manifests, and clearance, given the petitioner's claim of unauthorized import and disownment of the goods (turning on Sections 30, 31, 45, 46 of the Customs Act, 1962)? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that it is a statutory obligation of the respondents, under Chapter VI of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 30 and 31, not to permit the vessel carrying the goods to enter Indian territory or accept arrival/import manifests, as the petitioner has no connection with the goods and has disowned them. They contended that the goods should not be unloaded. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents argued that the petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and that the petitioner cannot seek an injunction against authorities acting in accordance with statutory provisions. They contended that if the petitioner has contractual differences with its foreign buyer, it has an independent remedy and sought dismissal of the petition.
Sections Cited
Section 30, Section 31, Section 45, Section 46, Section 48
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. W.P.(C) 2286/2026 2. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 claiming to be engaged in the manufacturing and export of PVC flooring granules having registered office at Phase-1 Eldeco Sidcul Industrial Area, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand.
The petitioner claims to be exporter holding IEC Code: AADCB5586G and GST No.: 05AADCB5586G1ZN.
Alleging that this Court has juri iction over the issue, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents No. 1 to 4 to prohibit and restrain the entry of the vessels/vehicles carrying the unauthorized consignments bearing B/L Nos. ONEYSING08933400 and ONEYSING08934500 into Indian territorial waters, ports and/or customs stations; and/or ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents No. 1 to 4 to refuse to grant entry inwards under Section 31 of the Customs Act, 1962 to any vessel/vehicle carrying the said unauthorized consignments; and/or iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents No. 1 to 4 to refuse to accept or process any Import General Manifest (IGM) filed in respect of the said consignments showing the Petitioner as consignee/importer, in absence of the Petitioner's authorization; and/or iv. Issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining and prohibiting Respondents No. 1 to 4 from permitting unloading, clearance, warehousing or any other dealing with the said unauthorized consignments purportedly consigned to the Petitioner; and/or v. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 5 (Ocean Network Express) to take back the said consignments and not attempt to deliver the same at any Indian port/ICD in the name of the Petitioner; and/or vi. Declare that the purported import of the said consignments is illegal, void ab initio, and impermissible under the Customs Act, 1962 for want of lawful importer and for violation of Sections 30, 31, 32, 45, 46 and other mandatory provisions; and/or W.P.(C) 2286/2026 vii. Declare that the Petitioner is not the importer of the said consignments and categorically disowns the same, and shall not be held responsible or liable in any manner whatsoever including for payment of customs duty, demurrage, warehousing charges, penalties or any other charges or liabilities; and/or viii. Direct Respondents No. 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against Respondent No. 5 and the foreign shipper for fraudulent misuse of the Petitioner's name, identity and IEC, and for attempting unauthorized imports in violation of the Customs Act; and/or ix. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents No. 1 to 4 to ensure that the Petitioner's IEC is not suspended, cancelled or adversely affected in any manner on account of these unauthorized imports; and/or x. Award costs of this Writ Petition to the Petitioner; xi. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 is the Union of India (‘UOI’). Respondent no. 2 is the Commissioner of Customs having juri iction over ICD Tughlakabad, which is the relevant port for the purpose of deciding the present issue. Respondent No. 3 is the Additional Commissioner of Customs having juri iction over ICD Tughlakabad. Respondent no. 4 is the Proper Officer of Customs assigned functions in relation to the entry of goods, filing of the IGM, and clearance of imported goods. Respondent no. 5 is a private limited company alleged to be in the maritime transportation of cargo.
Alleging that respondent no. 5 has wrongfully issued Bills of Lading showing the petitioner as shipper/consignee in respect of an unauthorised “return shipment” without the consent, knowledge or authority of the petitioner, the petitioner, relying upon the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Customs Act, 1962, has approached this Court. W.P.(C) 2286/2026 7. The petitioner claims that it is in the manufacturing and export of flooring products including PVC flooring granules and had received an export order from United Overseas Trade Pte. Ltd., Singapore (‘foreign buyer’) for the supply of PVC granules.
In furtherance thereof, the petitioner manufactured and exported the consignment to Singapore.
It is the case of the petitioner that the said consignment was duly cleared by the Indian Customs Authorities at ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi, with complete compliance with the statutory requirements under the Customs Act, 1962, under the respective Shipping Bill numbers.
As a sequel to the above, the consignments were shipped from India to Singapore through respondent no. 5 under the following Bills of Lading. “• B/L No. ONEYDELF44503600 • B/L No. ONEYDELF44502500”
According to the petitioner, the export shipment was completed in accordance with law and the goods reached Singapore, as a sequel of which the petitioner discharged its contractual obligations towards the foreign buyer.
It is the case of the petitioner that it has not received any complaint regarding the quality, quantity, or specifications of the exported goods.
According to the petitioner, on or about 16th February 2026, it received an e-mail from respondent no. 5 informing that consignments W.P.(C) 2286/2026 purportedly belonging to the petitioner were arriving at ICD Tughlakabad as a “return shipment” from Singapore.
The petitioner was served with a Cargo Arrival Notice dated 16th February 2026, which disclosed the following: Particulars First consignment Second Consignment B/L No. ONEYSING08933400 ONEYSING08934500 B/L Date 13.02.2026 13.02.2026 Port of Loading Singapore Singapore Place of Delivery ICD Tughlakabad ICD Tughlakabad Description 1X20ST CONTAINERS RETURN SHIPMENT - 1064 BAGS CONTAINING PVC GRANULES 1X20ST CONTAINERS RETURN SHIPMENT - 1064 BAGS CONTAINING PVC GRANULES Invoice Reference MFIL/05A/2025-26 dated 25.09.2025 MFIL/04A/2025-26 dated 25.09.2025 S.B. Reference 5659449 dated 26.09.2025 5659457 dated 26.09.2025 IEC No. AADCB5586G AADCB5586G ETA 20.02.2026 16:00 20.02.2026 16:00 W.P.(C) 2286/2026 15. According to the petitioner, it had not placed any order for the import of any goods whatsoever from Singapore or from any other foreign country; nor had it entered into any contract for the purchase of PVC flooring granules or any other goods. The petitioner had neither requested, authorised, consented to, nor approved the return shipment of the exported goods. It is further stated that the petitioner is not the importer of the consignment for which the Cargo Arrival Notice was issued and has neither filed nor authorised the filing of any Bill of Entry. The petitioner asserts that it has no knowledge of the source of the said shipped goods from Singapore, the purpose thereof, or the person under whose instructions the same was effected. Accordingly, the petitioner has disowned and disclaimed any connection with the said consignment.
According to the petitioner, the consignment in respect of which it was served with the Cargo Arrival Notice dated 16th February 2026 was an unauthorised consignment, which led the petitioner to prefer a representation dated 16th February 2026 to the respondent authorities, disowning the said consignment.
It is claimed that the petitioner has no commercial relation with the foreign buyer, and that there exists neither any dispute nor any complaint in relation to the quality of the goods or otherwise. Some foreign party, without any lawful authority, knowledge, consent, or approval of the petitioner, has illegally shipped the goods to India by showing the petitioner’s name as the consignee/importer.
Alleging that the aforesaid conduct on the part of respondent W.P.(C) 2286/2026 no. 5 is in gross violation of the Customs Act, 1962, an abuse of the petitioner’s IEC (Import Export Code) and identity, and constitutes a criminal conspiracy to implicate the petitioner in unauthorised imports, the petitioner claims that the import of the aforesaid consignment to India is absolutely illegal, void, and impermissible in law, and has sought the directions as prayed for in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that it is a statutory obligation on the part of the respondents, pursuant to the scheme of Chapter VI of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 30 and 31, not to permit the said vessel to enter Indian territory and accept the delivery of arrival manifest or import manifest.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the goods are not required to be unloaded from the vessel, in view of the fact that the petitioner has no remote connection whatsoever with the goods-in- question. The petitioner having disowned the same by virtue of representation dated 16th February 2026, as such, he would urge that this Court not only should call notice to the respondents but also pass an injunction order.
As against above, the counsel for the respondent would oppose the prayer, as according to him, not only the petition suffers from the failure to join necessary parties but also the petitioner cannot seek the injunction against the respondents authorities not to act in accordance with the statutory provisions.
It is claimed that, if the petitioner has any contractual difference with its foreign buyer in Singapore, the petitioner has an independent W.P.(C) 2286/2026 remedy, and sought dismissal of the petition.
We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the petitioner.
It is an admitted position from the pleadings in the petition that the petitioner, under its IEC, had exported a shipment of PVC flooring granules to United Overseas Trade Pte. Ltd., Singapore. However, the said party has not been impleaded as a necessary party to the present petition.
An appropriate reading of the entire pleadings, particularly paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 15, cumulatively gives the impression that the consignment in relation to which the petitioner seeks an injunction was returned by the Singapore party, to which it was originally supplied. However, the petitioner has failed to categorically spell-out as to what happened to the export bill with the Singapore firm.
Apart from the above, once the petitioner has disowned the consignment in question for which it was served with the notice dated 16th February 2026 viz., the cargo arrival, the necessary consequences under the Customs Act, 1962, shall follow.
Appropriate reliance may be placed upon the provisions of Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. 28. In case, if the petitioner is not the importer of the goods in question or the goods do not belong to the petitioner, Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides the procedure to be followed where the goods are not cleared, warehoused, or transshipped within thirty days from the date of unloading.
In such an eventuality, in our opinion, not only is the petition W.P.(C) 2286/2026 misconceived, but also if the relief is granted as prayed in the petition, the same will be in violation of Sections 30 and 31 of the Customs Act, 1962. 30. If the petitioner has any grievances qua his Singapore party, it is always open for it to take recourse to such remedy as is permissible and available in law.
In that view of the matter, no case for exercising our extraordinary juri iction is made out.
The petition, as such, fails and stands dismissed.
Pending applications are also disposed of.
Copy of the Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE (JUDGE) AJAY DIGPAUL (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 18, 2026/sky/sk
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.