2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRANIJ HEIGHTS INDIA PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-14733/2024

Under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, extension of time for adjudication does not require communication to the noticee, unlike Section 110(2). Non‑communication is not fatal.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 28(9) - Section 28(9A) - Section 110(2) - Extension of time for adjudication of show cause notice - Communication of extension order not mandated under Section 28(9) - Distinction from Section 110(2) which requires intimation to person from whom goods seized - Failure to communicate extension not fatal to proceedings - Proper officer to determine duty within specified period; extension by senior officer permitted without requirement of notice to the party. (Paras 16-18)

(B) Administrative law - Duty of party to participate in proceedings - Repeated notices for filing reply and personal hearing ignored - Non-compliance cannot be used to challenge proceedings on technical grounds - Petitioner must show prejudice. (Paras 8-13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner imported aluminium foil and claimed preferential duty exemption under ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement based on Certificates of Origin from Malaysia and Thailand. The investigating authority issued an alert regarding authenticity of such certificates. After verification, the foreign trade ministry stated that the certificates were not authentic. A show cause notice was issued in July 2023 proposing denial of exemption and penalty. The petitioner did not file a reply despite multiple letters and personal hearing opportunities. An extension of one year for adjudication was granted under Section 28(9) by the Principal Commissioner. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice on the ground that the extension order was not communicated to them. The adjudicating authority thereafter passed an Order-in-Original in March 2025.

Findings of Court:
The court examined the distinction between Section 28(9) and Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. Under Section 110(2), the requirement to inform the person from whom goods were seized about extension is expressly provided. Section 28(9) contains no such stipulation. Therefore, non‑communication of the extension order does not invalidate the adjudication proceedings. The court also noted that the petitioner had been given ample opportunities to file a reply and attend hearings but failed to do so. No prejudice was shown. The Order-in-Original is an appealable order, and the petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within one month, which would not be barred by limitation.

Issues: The main issues were whether the failure to communicate the extension order under Section 28(9) vitiates the adjudication proceedings, and whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the show cause notice on that ground despite not participating in the adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 28(9) does not require communication of the extension order to the noticee. While it is good practice to intimate such extension, its absence is not a fatal flaw. The provision under Section 110(2) is different and cannot be read into Section 28(9). The petitioner’s failure to respond to the show cause notice and participate in hearings undermines the challenge based on procedural technicalities. Result : Petition disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the Order-in-Original before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within one month from the date of judgment, which shall be considered within limitation. All rights and contentions left open.