Bombay High Court Refuses to Order Retrospective Customs Duty Correction Over Alleged Tariff Error

The Bombay High Court has declined to intervene in a plea seeking retrospective correction of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) rates for specific chemical tariff items under the Customs Tariff Act, where the petitioner claimed a “clerical error” had led to an unjustified increase in import duty from 7.5% to 10%.

The Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain ruled that the judiciary cannot direct the legislature to amend or correct enacted tariff schedules or to give such changes retrospective effect, asserting that such corrections fall solely within the legislative domain.

The petitioner submitted that a customs sub-heading (293359 under Chapter 29) was omitted from the Third Schedule of the Finance Act, 2022, by mistake, causing an inflated duty burden until the alleged error was rectified by way of notifications issued in February and May 2025. It was submitted that this correction should have been effective from May 1, 2022.

The department opposed the grant of any reliefs in this Petition by pointing out that once a particular tariff heading is prescribed, that constitutes the authoritative expression of the legislative will of the parliament, and the Courts cannot exercise their powers of judicial review in such matters. 

The Court rejected this position, stating, “It is not for this Court to issue directions for correction of so-called errors in the customs tariff. Courts do not encroach upon the legislative domain by directing it to enact or amend a law.”

The bench emphasized that even if the legislature later amended the law, the prospective nature of that change could not be treated as implied acknowledgment of a past error.

While denying substantive relief, the Court permitted the petitioner to pursue administrative remedies. It requested the Union Ministry of Finance and the CBIC to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s March 23, 2024 representation—along with a supplementary representation to be filed within two weeks—within a reasonable period.

However, the Court clarified that it was not issuing a formal writ of mandamus and that the decision remained at the discretion of the concerned authorities.

Case Details

Case Title: Aarti Drugs Limited Versus Union of India

Case No.: Writ Petition (L) No. 31254 Of 2024

Date:  07 July 2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Prasannan Namboodiri

Counsel For Respondent: Jitendra B Mishra

Read More: Refund from Electronic Cash Ledger Cannot Be Arbitrarily Withheld: Supreme Court Dismisses Centre’s Plea

Mariya Paliwala
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

GSTN Issue Advisory On Filing of SPL-01/ SPL-02 where payment made through GSTR 3B

The Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) has issued the advisory on…

Customs Dept’s Re-Determination Of Classification Of Imported ECU Not Legal: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)…

Dept. To Issue SVLDRS Form-3 As Amount Paid Before Cut-Off Date: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the department to issue Sabka…

No Service Tax On Discount Towards Sale Of Goods: CESTAT

The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)…