Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Against Customs Order, Says Non-Communication Of Adjudication Time Extension Not Fatal

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed writ petitions challenging adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, holding that non-communication of an order extending time for adjudication does not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings.

A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul relied on Pranij Heights India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs where it was held that although as a matter of prudence the Customs Department ought to intimate the grant of extension to the concerned parties, non-communication thereof would not, by itself, constitute a fatal error, since Section 28 of the Customs Act does not stipulate communication of such extension as a mandatory pre-condition to its validity.

Petitioners had assailed the adjudication proceedings arising out of a show cause notice alleging undervaluation and misdeclaration in imports.

Among other grounds, they contended that the adjudication order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act and that the alleged extension of time for adjudication was neither validly granted nor communicated to them.

It was argued that such extension, affecting substantive rights, could not be effected without notice and opportunity, and non-communication of the extension order rendered the proceedings invalid.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that communication of extension of time is not mandatory under Section 28 of the Customs Act.

The court drew a distinction between provisions where communication is expressly required and Section 28 of the Customs Act, noting that the latter does not stipulate prior intimation of extension to the noticee.

On the broader challenge, the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 would ordinarily not be exercised where an efficacious alternate statutory remedy is available. It found that the issues raised by the petitioners, including those relating to limitation, corrigendum to the show cause notice, and alleged procedural violations, could appropriately be agitated before the appellate authority.

As such, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and relegated the petitioners to avail remedies under the Customs Act.

For Petitioner: Advocate Prateek Bhadana