The Bombay High Court on 28 October set aside a customs order against Asahi India Glass Ltd., holding that the authority could not sustain its decision by relying on judicial citations that the Customs Department itself admitted could not be traced.
A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed the company's petition and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs for fresh adjudication. The judges observed:
“In paragraph 25 (b) of the affidavit in reply it is clearly stated that citations which are at paragraph Nos. 4.7 and 5.3 could not be traced in the form and citation given. It is stated in the affidavit in reply that the Respondents do not rely on them and profusely regret the error.”
Asahi India Glass challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 15 October 2025, contending that the authority had passed it beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The company also questioned the classification of its imported goods despite an earlier classification accepted by a superior customs authority.
The Deputy Commissioner had relied on judicial decisions to hold that the 15-day time limit for passing a speaking order under Section 17(5) was directory and not mandatory. During the High Court proceedings, however, the Department admitted that the citations mentioned in the order could not be traced in the form provided and stated that it no longer relied on them.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India, which cautioned against relying on dubious judicial precedents and discussed the risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence in adjudication. It observed:
“Drawing support from the observations made in the aforesaid decision, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order.”
Further, the Bench addressed the classification issue, observing that customs authorities should maintain consistency when subsequent imports comprise goods identical to those previously classified by a superior authority. It said:
“However, in our view, if the fresh import is the same as the goods earlier classified, consistency has to be maintained, more so when the goods have been classified on the previous occasion by the Superior Authority.”
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the customs order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the Deputy Commissioner to decide it expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after giving Asahi India Glass an opportunity for a personal hearing. It left the question of jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice open.
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, along with Advocates Jitendra Singh, Anshuman Sahni and Rahul Gupta, instructed by Advocate Amir Arsiwala.
For the Respondents: Advocates Maya Majumdar, Megha Bajoria and Khushi P. Agarwal.