The Bombay High Court has allowed an assessee to file an appeal against a customs adjudication order issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The ruling follows the Supreme Court’s landmark reversal in the Canon India case; clears the way for merits-based adjudication of disputed customs demand.
The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain granted an eight-week window for filing the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), without any objection on limitation grounds.
Background: Jurisdictional Dispute Over DRI Powers
The dispute centered on the validity of a show cause notice issued by a DRI officer, which was earlier challenged on the ground that such officers were not “proper officers” under the Customs Act. This argument drew strength from the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Canon India Pvt. Ltd., which had invalidated such notices.
The Bombay High Court had kept the matter pending awaiting the outcome of the Centre’s review petition before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Clarifies DRI’s Authority
On November 7, 2024, the Supreme Court, in its ruling on Review Petition No. 400 of 2021, reversed its earlier finding. It held that DRI officers were indeed appointed as proper officers through valid notifications dating back to 1990, which were not brought to the Court’s attention earlier. Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022, which retrospectively validated such notices, was constitutional.
The Court’s earlier reliance on the Sayed Ali judgment was misplaced due to fundamental factual and legal distinctions.
This ruling restored the DRI’s authority to issue notices under Section 28 of the Act and directed all courts to dispose of pending matters accordingly.
High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines
In line with Paragraph 168(vi)(c) of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Bombay High Court granted the petitioner eight weeks to appeal the December 5, 2023 Order-in-Original before CESTAT. It directed the appellate body to consider the matter on merits, without dismissing the appeal as time-barred.
Importantly, while the Court kept open all arguments on natural justice and other merits, it made clear that issues settled by the Supreme Court’s ruling cannot be re-argued.
Case Details
Case Title: Kale Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 10018 OF 2024
Date: 22 JULY 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Amey Nargolkar a/w. Akshta Jadhav
Counsel For Respondent: Sangeeta Yadav a/w. Ms. N. Trivedi and Mr. Subir Kumar
Read More: Can you Enrol As An Advocate And hold CA’s Certificate of Practice simultaneously?
