Back
Dismisses Zenlayer's Plea for Single Authority to Adjudicate All Three Customs
The has dismissed a batch of filed by cloud networking company and its associates, refusing to order a of three () issued following a () investigation into import irregularities.
One Investigation, Three , No
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain on , held that although the three emanated from a single probe and shared substantial documentary overlap, they had “distinct subject matters” and arose at “different stages” of the alleged transactions. The first (No.24/2022-23) concerned four intercepted live consignments at the time of import, proposing under . The second (No.40/2023-24) involved 74 already cleared , invoking for recovery of . The third (No.12/2023) targeted networking equipment found at various data centres without valid import documentation.
Zenlayer had moved the court in after the () appointed a () only for the third , leaving the first two to be adjudicated separately by the Principal Commissioner of Customs in New Delhi. The company argued that mandated a single for all three notices given the overlapping evidence and risk of contradictory findings.
Declined: Relegated to Appeal
While the court acknowledged that Zenlayer’s request for was “not without basis”, it noted that during the pendency of the petition, two had already been adjudicated by the Principal Commissioner, resulting in a consolidated dated . That order confirmed duty demands and imposed penalties on 23 firms and individuals, including Zenlayer, Amit Singh (its former General Manager), and (an ).
The court found no in the simultaneous adjudication. It clarified that its earlier of , which adjourned a before the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai to beyond , did not the proceedings before the New Delhi authority. “The was to adjourn the fixed before the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai to a date beyond ,” the judgment states. “The said order did not expressly the adjudication proceedings in respect of Nos.24/2022-23 and 40/2023-24 before the competent authority at New Delhi.”
Similarly, the court declined to examine the individual raised by Amit Singh (non-consideration of his reply and denial of effective hearing) and Rahi Systems (failure to serve subsequent hearing notices at correctly provided email addresses). It observed that these grievances involved disputed factual questions best suited for the under .
Key Observations from the Bench
The court made several significant observations while rejecting the petitions:
“The three have distinct subject matters and arise at different stages of the alleged transactions.”
“The principle [in ] cannot be understood as laying down that every emanating from a common investigation must, irrespective of the nature of the allegations and reliefs proposed therein, necessarily be adjudicated by one authority.”
“Whether those principles [of ] were violated in the individual cases, however, depends upon examination of the disputed factual record relating to the respective . Such examination can appropriately be undertaken by the .”
Final Decision
The court dismissed all four — W.P.(C) 7091/2025 (Zenlayer’s plea for ), W.P.(C) 1407/2026 (challenge to the ), W.P.(C) 1374/2026 (Amit Singh’s petition), and W.P.(C) 5470/2026 (Rahi Systems’ petition). It clarified that nothing in the judgment should be construed as an expression of opinion on the of the allegations, , , , or individual , all of which were left open for the appellate authority to consider.
The ruling underscores that while the investigation may be a common thread, customs adjudication can proceed separately where the nature of the alleged violations, the stage of import, and the reliefs sought differ materially. It also reinforces the principle that should not ordinarily entertain challenges to adjudication orders when an effective is available.
