Non-Communication of Time Extension By Customs Dept. Doesn’t Invalidate Adjudication: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that failure to formally communicate an order granting extension of time for adjudication under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 does not, by itself, render the adjudication proceedings invalid, particularly where the statute does not mandate such communication and the importer had notice of the show cause proceedings and opportunities of hearing. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition challenging delayed adjudication of a customs show cause notice relating to denial of preferential duty benefits under the ASEAN–India Free Trade Agreement The petition was filed assailing a show cause notice (SCN) dated 7 July 2023 issued by the customs authorities proposing denial of exemption claimed on imports of aluminium foil and seeking recovery of duty along with penalties. The imports were made between July 2018 and March 2020 by claiming preferential tariff treatment on the basis of Certificates of Origin (COOs) purportedly issued in Malaysia and Thailand under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), acting on an alert circular issued in September 2021 concerning suspected misuse of ASEAN FTA benefits, initiated verification of the COOs. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), Malaysia, subsequently informed Indian authorities that the COOs relied upon by the importer were not authentic and that no applications for issuance of such certificates had been received from the concerned overseas suppliers. Based on this verification, the SCN was issued proposing rejection of the exemption and recovery of duties. Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the adjudication of the SCN was barred by limitation as no order had been passed within one year as prescribed under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, and further, that any extension of time allegedly granted by the department was never communicated to it. Relying on judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was argued that non-communication of an extension order vitiated the entire adjudication. The customs department, however, placed on record a detailed chronology showing that multiple opportunities had been given to the petitioner to file replies and attend personal hearings, which were repeatedly not availed. The department also produced internal records demonstrating that a one-year extension for completing adjudication had been granted by the competent authority under Section 28(9) on 1 July 2024. It was submitted that the petitioner approached the High Court only after the original one-year period had lapsed, despite being aware of the SCN and subsequent notices. The court examined the statutory framework and held that Section 28(9) of the Customs Act permits extension of time for adjudication by a senior officer but does not expressly require communication of such extension to the noticee. The Court distinguished Section 28 from Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, which specifically mandates intimation to the person from whom goods are seized when the period for issuance of notice is extended. The Bench observed that the two provisions operate in different statutory contexts and cannot be read interchangeably. While observing that, as a matter of good administrative practice, the customs authorities ought to intimate parties about extensions granted, the Court clarified that absence of such communication would not be fatal where the statute does not prescribe it as a mandatory requirement. The Court also took note of the petitioner’s conduct in not filing a substantive reply on merits to the SCN and in repeatedly seeking adjournments or additional documents, despite the adjudicating authority dealing with those requests in the Order-in-Original. The Court held that since the Order-in-Original was an appealable order, no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction. However, considering that interim protection had earlier been granted, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within one month, directing that such appeal would not be rejected on the ground of limitation and would be decided on merits. Case Details Case Title: Pranij Heights India Pvt Ltd Versus The Joint Commissioner Of Customs Case No.: W.P.(C) 14733/2024 & CM APPL. 61875/2024 Date: 16/12/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Prem Ranjan Kumar Counsel For Respondent: Gibran Naushad Click Here To Read Order Read More: Retrospective GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Prior Notice in SCN: Delhi HC

Non-Communication of Time Extension By Customs Dept. Doesn’t Invalidate Adjudication: Delhi High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

Parliamentary Panel to Review Reservation Policy in CBIC, CBDT

GST Registration Cancellation Without Reasons Amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of Business: Supreme Court

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 21 JULY, 2026

Is Six-Month Notice Under GST Section 74 Mandatory? Supreme Court Stays Assessment Orders

More like this

Parliamentary Panel to Review Reservation Policy in CBIC, CBDT

GST Registration Cancellation Without Reasons Amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of Business: Supreme Court

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 21 JULY, 2026

About us

Company

Categories