Orissa High Court Rejects Customs Plea to Prefer CRCL Reports Over Private Lab Reports In Essel Mining Case

The Orissa High Court has rejected the customs department's argument that test reports issued by the Central Revenues Control Laboratory should be given primacy over load-port test reports issued by a NABL-accredited private laboratory and dismissed a revenue appeal against Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. in an iron ore export duty dispute. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman declined to interfere with a December 4, 2024 order of the Customs, Excise,...

Delhi High Court Gives Customs One Last Chance Over ₹5,000 Costs In Touch Screen Tariff Case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (January 6) gave the Customs Department one last chance to clear objections to its plea seeking recall of Rs 5 thousand in costs imposed for not filing replies in a batch of petitions challenging a customs duty hike on Interactive Flat Panel Displays.The court warned that if the objections are not removed within a week, the recall application will stand rejected automatically.A division bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul noted that the...

Can Customs Reopen Decade-Old Duty Drawback Claims? Delhi High Court To Examine?

In March, the Delhi High Court is set to examine whether customs authorities can revive decade-old export transactions through belated show cause notices (SCNs) without running afoul of the doctrine of delay and laches.On December 9, 2025, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain heard a batch of petitions concerning the validity of SCNs issued in relation to the availment of duty drawback. The issue arose from the issuance of SCNs to the...

Mere Apprehension of Business Loss In State Does Not Confer Writ Court Territorial Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a petitioner's mere apprehension of business loss in West Bengal is not enough to invoke the court's territorial jurisdiction in a writ petition. A single-judge bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai, while dismissing a plea filed by a Kuwait company said that it is the infringement of a legal right that gives rise to a cause of action."The lis before this Court is only with regard to the violation of the petitioner's right to fair treatment and fair...

Mandatory Pre-Deposit For Customs Appeal Cannot Be Waived For Financially Sound Appellant: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the mandatory pre-deposit required to pursue a customs appeal cannot be waived for a financially sound appellant/importer. In a recently uploaded order pronounced on November 7, 2025, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said the pre-deposit under Section 129-E of the Customs Act does not deny access to justice. “It is a statutory discipline that applies uniformly to all appellants. The statute's mandate endures, subsists and is unyielding, until constitutional...

Customs Officials Acting In Official Capacity Not Liable To Cross-Examination As Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Customs officials discharging their duties in an official capacity are not liable to be cross-examined as a matter of right during adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act.A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain made the observation while partially allowing a writ petition challenging denial of Petitioner's request to cross-examine certain persons in a customs duty evasion case.As per the show cause notice, Petitioner was involved in...

Customs | ELISA Kits For Food Testing Qualify As 'Diagnostic' For Exemption: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Importer

The Delhi High Court, in a matter involving claim of Customs Duty exemption on import of Enzyme linked Immuno Absorbent Assay (ELISA) Kits for antibiotic testing in food as 'diagnostic kits' will hear the plea by food safety importers in January 2026. Recently, a Division Bench comprising, Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain were hearing an appeal by the importer against denial of the exemption by Delhi, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Delhi...

Customs | Mere Location Of DRI Or Central Revenues Control Lab In Delhi Doesn't Confer Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because DRI headquarters or Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) are located in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction upon it to deal with Customs disputes arising in Tamil Nadu.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar made the observation while dealing with the case of Petitioners, situated in Chennai, but challenging seizure memos in Delhi on the ground that its goods were tested at CRCL, Delhi.The judges observed,“The...

Extension Of Time To Adjudicate SCN U/S 28 Customs Act Need Not Be Communicated To Importer: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department need not communicate to an importer that the time for adjudicating a show cause notice issued to it has been extended by virtue of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962.Section 28(9) sets time limits for the Customs officer to finalize demand proceedings after issuing SCN for unpaid/short-levied duty, requiring determination within six months for normal cases (S. 28(1)) and one year for specific cases (S. 28(4)). The provision allows...

“Resources Completely Wasted Away”: Delhi High Court Fines Customs For Delaying Release Of Seized Goods Despite Order

The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for wasting public resources by withholding seized goods despite an adjudication order already having directed its unconditional release, eventually leading to avoidable litigation.A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“The present is a case which shows how the resources of the Customs Department are completely being wasted away in such matters.”The Court was dealing with a petition moved by a traveller...

Customs Act | Penalty Cannot Be Sustained Solely On S. 108 Statements Without Compliance Of S. 138B: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that statements recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act cannot form the basis for imposing penalties unless the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 138B are complied with.Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that Section 138B is essentially in the form of a procedural safeguard regarding the admission of statements under Section 108 in evidence. When the safeguards under Section 138B have not been complied with, no question of...

Delhi High Court Flags Customs' Practice Of Mentioning Communicating Officer's Name In Order Instead Of Deciding Officer

The Delhi High Court has disapproved of the Customs Department mentioning the name of such officer in the order who communicated it to the party, instead of the officer who actually passed the order.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“Orders which are passed have to be signed by the Officials who pass the said orders. The communication of the same can be done by anyone else but the name and designation of the Official who is actually passing the order has to...