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
