Madras HC Dismisses Plea of Meat Exporter attempting to Ship Prohibited Meat to UAE, Allegations of Sampling without Presence Rejected [Read Order]

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a meat exporter who challenged proceedings initiated by Customs authorities after an attempt to ship prohibited meat products to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The exporter had sought a direction for the release of perishable goods covered under Shipping Bill Nos. 3866189 and 3866248, filed in August 2024, arguing that the proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court, however, upheld the order of the authorities, finding no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner, a registered exporter, contended that they had received an order for Indian Halal Frozen Boneless Buffalo Meat, which was duly processed, packed, and certified for export at an approved slaughterhouse in Andhra Pradesh.

The consignments, further endorsed by concerned departments in Telangana, were claimed to be compliant with all regulatory requirements. Based on such certification, the shipping bills were filed and the goods were readied for export. However, Customs officials withheld the consignments, later alleging that samples drawn revealed the goods to be ox/bull meat, prohibited for export under Indian law instead of the declared buffalo meat.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements! Click here

Following the adverse test report, proceedings were initiated, culminating in an order where the respondent authority concluded that the exporter had willfully attempted to ship prohibited goods. The order recorded that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of re-testing despite receiving the initial report. Consequently, the authority ordered confiscation of the consignments and imposition of penalty.

Aggrieved by the order, the exporter approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the entire process was tainted with illegality.

One of the central arguments advanced by the petitioner was that the samples were collected without their presence, in violation of Section 144 of the Customs Act, which mandates the presence of the owner or his representative during such proceedings.

The exporter argued that this procedural violation rendered the sampling invalid and vitiated the entire action. Stressing that the consignments were perishable in nature, the petitioner urged that immediate release was warranted to prevent irreparable commercial loss.

The Court, however, declined to interfere. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh noted that the authority had provided cogent reasons justifying confiscation and penalty, and no patent error of law was evident to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The bench also refrained from commenting on the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner, observing that doing so might prejudice the statutory appellate remedies available.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had efficacious options of challenging the order before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). It was clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the exporter from seeking such remedies.

Additionally, the Court allowed the petitioner to submit an application for the release of the seized items, instructing the relevant authorities to give priority consideration to such a request and make a decision based on its own merits and legality.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates