Delhi High Court Sends Importer To Customs Appellate Remedy Over 9-Year Assessment Delay

The Delhi High Court has relegated an importer to the statutory appellate remedy after adjudication orders were passed in respect of its provisional customs assessments, which the importer had challenged on the ground of a delay of over nine years.

The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that the writ petition could not be kept pending merely because the Supreme Court was examining the larger issue concerning delay in adjudication proceedings.

The Court also took note of the fact that an adjudication order concerning one of the Bills of Entry had already been passed before the writ petition was instituted, but was not disclosed by the Petitioner.

For context, Petitioner had approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution complaining that nine Bills of Entry had remained provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 for several years.

The provisional assessments related to imports including Christmas lights, sunlight bulbs, rope lights, LED rope lights, LED strips and iron buckles from China. Petitioner had furnished bank guarantees totalling ₹19,19,400 in connection with the provisional assessments.

Petitioner sought release of the bank guarantees and a direction restraining the Customs authorities from initiating proceedings for finalisation of the provisional assessments.

It argued that although Section 18 of the Customs Act does not prescribe an express time limit for finalising provisional assessments, Customs authorities could not be permitted to keep such assessments pending indefinitely.

Reliance was placed on the Customs Manuals and the Customs (Finalization of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018 to contend that provisional assessments were required to be finalised expeditiously.

However, the High Court noted that the factual position had subsequently changed.

An order dated January 21, 2022 had already been passed in respect of one of the Bills of Entry, ordering absolute confiscation of the imported goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act and imposing penalties under Sections 112(b)(i) and 114AA.

Two further orders were passed during the pendency of the writ petition, on March 31, 2026 and June 15, 2026, in respect of the remaining Bills of Entry.

The Court particularly took exception to Petitioner's failure to disclose the 2022 adjudication order when it instituted the writ petition in 2024.

A party invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the Bench observed, is expected to make a “full and candid disclosure of all material facts” having a bearing on the relief sought.

The Court noted that the non-disclosure was material because Petitioner had sought to restrain finalisation of the provisional assessment relating to the very Bill of Entry in respect of which an adjudication order had already been passed.

Petitioner had also relied on the Supreme Court's May 2, 2025 order in Union of India & Ors. v. GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd., contending that the present writ petition should be kept pending until the Supreme Court decided the larger issue concerning delay in adjudication.

However, rejecting this contention the High Court held that the Supreme Court's direction to defer matters concerning the issue of delay in adjudication was required to be understood in its factual context and could not be construed as requiring every proceeding in which delay had been alleged at some stage to remain pending irrespective of subsequent developments.

It noted that the present case had travelled beyond mere pendency of adjudication proceedings since orders had already been passed and Petitioner could challenge those orders before the appellate authority under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act.

The Court said the appellate forum could also examine Petitioner's grievance regarding the delay preceding the adjudication orders.

It further held that the issue of delay was not rendered incapable of examination merely because adjudication orders had subsequently been passed.

“The Petitioner would be entitled to urge, before the competent appellate forum, such grounds as may be available to it in law, including the effect, if any, of the delay in the proceedings leading to the adjudication orders.”

As such, the Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

For Petitioner: Advocates Akhil Krishan Maggu, Vikas Sareen, Oshin Maggu, Aryan Nagpal, Palak Sarna

For Respondents: MGibran Naushad, SSC with Suraj Shekhar Singh, Hasan Haider, Anish Mishra,