Attempted Smuggling Of Poppy Seeds, Areca Nuts: Delhi High Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Importer’s PoA

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the importer’s Power Of Attorney Holder (PoA) challenging a customs Order-in-Original that had imposed penalties exceeding Rs. 12 crore on him for alleged involvement in the attempted smuggling of banned goods into India. The Court not only refused to entertain the petition but also imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh for suppression of material facts. A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, delivering the judgment through hybrid mode, found that the petitioner had failed to disclose crucial earlier proceedings and had attempted to misuse writ jurisdiction to bypass the statutory appeals mechanism. The case stems from intelligence inputs received by Customs in December 2021 regarding containers linked to importer Jyoti Enterprises. Two separate consignments—one comprising five containers and another two containers—were declared as ammonium sulphate (HS Code 31022100). However, upon inspection by SIIB, ICD Patparganj, and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the authorities discovered large quantities of prohibited items—poppy seeds and areca nuts—hidden behind bags of fertiliser. Investigators found evidence suggesting deliberate misdeclaration, concealment, and possible operation of a smuggling network using IEC codes of front entities. The consignor in the Bill of Lading was Meadows International Co., Hong Kong. Manish Sharma, who held a Power of Attorney from the exporter, was treated as the authorised representative in India. But during the investigation, his statements raised serious doubts that he admitted he had no knowledge of the exporter’s operations, purchase orders, Bills of Lading, or importer details. He stated he had only signed documents prepared by an advocate without understanding the contents. He had no communication with Meadows International except receiving a Power of Attorney couriered to him. Customs found he was a ‘dummy candidate’ used to mislead the investigation. Based on these findings, the customs authority imposed a penalty of ₹12 crore under Section 114AA and ₹4 lakh under Section 117 of the Customs Act. The High Court noted with concern that the petitioner failed to disclose a crucial order in a connected matter. In W.P.(C) 4859/2025 filed by Jyoti Enterprises, the Court had already refused to entertain a challenge to the same Order-in-Original, citing the availability of an appellate remedy and evidence of a deeper smuggling conspiracy. Meadows International had earlier filed W.P.(C) 5038/2022, in which the Court had ordered warehousing of goods—but that earlier petition, the Bench observed, had been filed without full disclosure of material facts. The non-disclosure of these proceedings by Manish Sharma’s counsel in the present petition was treated as suppression of material facts warranting judicial censure. The Bench strongly criticised the petitioner’s conduct and found that there existed prima facie evidence of an organised group involved in clandestine import of poppy seeds and areca nuts. The petitioner’s claim of innocence was inconsistent with the statements recorded during investigation. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked where statutory remedies—like appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act—are available. The conduct of both petitioner and counsel showed gross concealment and a lack of candour required in writ proceedings. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Commercial Steel Ltd. (2021), reiterating that high courts should not entertain writ petitions where an effective alternate remedy exists. The Court ordered the dismissal of the writ petition, imposition of ₹5,00,000 as exemplary costs, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks. The court listed the matter on December 18, 2025, for compliance of the cost order. Case Details Case Title: Manish Sharma Versus Additional Commissioner Of Customs Case No.: W.P.(C) 17242/2025, CM APPL. 71031/2025 & CM APPL. 71032/2025 Date: 13/11/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Priyadarshi Manish Counsel For Respondent: Harpreet Singh, SSC Click Here To Read Order Read More: Govt. to Notify Simplified ITR Forms by January 2026, Says CBDT Chairman

Attempted Smuggling Of Poppy Seeds, Areca Nuts: Delhi High Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Importer’s PoA

Membership Required

Latest articles

CIT(A) Not Obligated To Obtain AO’s Remand Report When Issue Already Settled By Jurisdictional High Court: ITAT

Gross Interest Can’t Be Taxed In Hands Of Mere Facilitator: ITAT Restricts Addition To TDS Amount

S. 68 First Proviso Applies Only To Companies, Not Partnership Firms: ITAT

Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Composite GST Assessment Order Covering Multiple FY

More like this

CIT(A) Not Obligated To Obtain AO’s Remand Report When Issue Already Settled By Jurisdictional High Court: ITAT

Gross Interest Can’t Be Taxed In Hands Of Mere Facilitator: ITAT Restricts Addition To TDS Amount

S. 68 First Proviso Applies Only To Companies, Not Partnership Firms: ITAT

About us

Company

Categories