$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19127/2025, CM APPLs.79566-67/2025 M/S JYOTI DEEP EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Ms. Anjali Jha Manish and Ms. Madhuri Malegaonkar, Advs.

versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms.

Suhani Mathur, Mr. Jatin Gaur, Mr. Akshay Saxena and Ms. Shivali Saxena, Advs.

Mr. Shashank Verma, SSC for R-4.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 79567/2025 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 19127/2025 & CM APPL. 79566/2025 (for interim relief)

3. The challenge in this petition is to the Show Cause Notice dated 28^th September, 2025 that was issued to the Petitioner on 30^th September, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘SCN’). The petition also raises a challenge to the letter dated 9th April, 2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Rohtak, Anti Evasion, Rohtak (hereinafter, ‘the impugned letter’).

4. The case of the Petitioner is that they had exported some automobile parts,whichweredetainedbythecustomsofficialsvideshippingbillnumbers

4292262 and 4304873. The details of the said bills are as under:

5. The goods were examined by the Customs Department and the prima facie finding in respect of certain goods was that the valuation was correctly given,however,in respect ofother goodsthey appeared tobeovervalued. On thebasisofthesaidassessmentoftheCustomsDepartment,though,thegoods were provisionally released, the SCN was provisionally issued, seeking to raise a demand in the following terms:

6. The submission of ld. Counsel is that the Customs Department has arrived at a conclusion already that there was over-valuation of the goods, without even seeking any explanation from the Petitioner.

7. Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. Counsel submits that only a SCN has been issueduntilnowandthePetitionermayfileareplythereto,containingalltheir submissions.

8. The Court has considered the matter. In such cases where there is a disputeonvaluationofthegoodsseized,thisCourt,inwritjurisdiction,would not be able to go into such analysis.

9. However, the Court is of the opinion that the Customs Department ought to give an opportunity to the Petitioner to explain the basis of the valuation given by the Petitioner in its shipping bills and if there is any material relied upon by the Customs Authorities to come to the conclusion that the goods were overvalued, the said material shall also be given to the Petitioner, so that the reply to the SCN can be properly submitted by the Petitioner.

10. Under these circumstances, let the Petitioner file a detailed reply to the SCN, giving its justification to the valuation in the shipping bills. If the Customs Department has any additional material to show that the goods were overvalued, the said material shall also be made available to the Petitioner, in response to which also an additional reply may be filed by the Petitioner, if required.

11. After the replies are filed by the Petitioner, a personal hearing shall be given and the SCN shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.

12. It is necessary to mention that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. All rights, remedies and contentions of both parties are left.

13. Insofar as the challenge to the impugned letter dated 9^th April, 2024 is concerned, the Petitioner’s remedies to be availed of in accordance with law are left open.

14. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

DECEMBER 17, 2025 dj/sm