Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Ajay Digpaul, JJ
Sandeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) – Respondent
W.P.(C) 4502/2026 | W.P.(C) 4504/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prateek Bhadana
For the Respondents: Gibran Naushad

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a substitute for statutory appellate remedies. Challenges to adjudication orders involving disputed facts or interpretations should be directed to the appellate forum. Non-communication of time extension orders under section 28(9) does not invalidate adjudication proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 28(4), 28(9), 28BB, 110, 112, 114AA, 124, 128 and 154 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Exercise of - Availability of alternate remedy - Interference in adjudication proceedings permitted only under exceptional circumstances - Patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice, or non-application of mind constitute valid grounds for interference. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 24).

(B) Adjudication proceedings - Extension of time - Communication to noticee - Statutory provisions do not mandate prior communication of extension order under Section 28 - Non-communication is not a fatal defect in adjudication. (Paras 17, 18, 26).

(C) Corrigendum - Scope - Powers under Section 154 limited to correction of clerical, typographical, or arithmetical errors - Cannot be used to introduce substantive material altering the core of notice. (Para 11).

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged an adjudication order before the High Court, alleging breaches of statutory timelines and jurisdictional defects. Petitioners contended that the initiation of proceedings and the subsequent extension of time for adjudication were invalid. They further argued that the issuance of a corrigendum constituted a fresh investigation beyond the prescribed period.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the adjudicating authority operated within its competence. It observed that while authorities ought to inform parties of time extensions, the statutory framework does not mandate such prior communication for the extension to be legally valid. The court reiterated that writ jurisdiction should generally not substitute an established appellate forum unless there is a clear, patent jurisdictional error.

Issues: The primary questions addressed were whether writ petitions are maintainable despite the existence of an alternate statutory appellate remedy, whether failure to communicate extension orders violates due process, and whether procedural timelines for investigation were breached.

Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory appellate mechanisms. In the absence of a patent lack of jurisdiction or procedural illegality that renders an order 'non-est', the court will not intervene. Furthermore, because no specific requirement for the prior communication of extension orders exists within the relevant provisions, non-disclosure does not invalidate the final adjudication order.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed with liberty to move the appellate authority; period spent in writ proceedings excluded for the purpose of computing limitation.

Table of Content
1. factual background leading to adjudication of customs disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding maintainability of writ versus statutory appeal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. judicial analysis of section 28 extension and section 28bb limitation. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. relegation to statutory appellate remedies for unresolved questions of fact. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. These two writ petitions, being W.P.(C) 4502/2026 and W.P.(C) 4504/2026, arise out of the same adjudication proceedings and challenge the same Order-in-Original¹Hereinafter “OIO” dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports). Since the issues raised in both petitions arise from the same show cause proceedings and the same adjudication order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 4502/2026 is Sandeep Kumar, stated to be the proprietor of M/s N. Brothers Overseas. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 4504/2026 is Sanjay Kumar, stated to be the proprietor of M/s Sanjay International.

3. On 10.10.2021, search proceedings were conducted by the Income Tax Authorities at the residential premises of family members of co-noticee Zakir Khan, during which certain electronic devices were seized. Thereafter, on 18.10.2021, acting on intelligence received from the Income Tax Authorities indicating alleged under-valuation and mis-declaration, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence²Hereinafter “DRI”, Delhi Zonal Unit, conducted search proceedings under panchnama at the residential premises of the family members of the said co-noticee. Statements of co-noticees under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962³Hereinafter “Customs Act” came to be recorded on different dates between 19.10.2021 and 06.11.2023.

4. The proceedings thereafter culminated in issuance of Show Cause Notice⁴Hereinafter “SCN” dated 12.10.2023 under Sections 28 (4) and 124 of the Customs Act. The said notice was issued against the present petitioners and other co-noticees, and concerned allegations of under-valuation and mis-declaration in the import of various electronic goods and accessories through multiple firms described therein as proxy/dummy entities allegedly owned and controlled by one Zakir Khan. In the tabulation contained in the said notice, M/s N. Brothers Overseas and M/s Sanjay International were reflected at serial nos. 12 and 16, respectively.

5. After issuance of the aforesaid SCN, further statements of co-noticee Jitender are stated in the record to have been recorded on 06.11.2023 and 08.11.2023. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 08.01.2024 came to be issued to the said SCN. The said corrigendum referred to the statements dated 06.11.2023 and 08.11.2023 of co-noticee Jitender and also added the statement dated 14.11.2023 of one Vijay Kumar.

6. The adjudication proceedings thereafter culminated in the passing of OIO dated 01.08.2025 by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports), which is common to both the present petitioners and constitutes the impugned order in these writ petitions. By the said order, the adjudicating authority, inter alia, held that the imports in question were part of a larger arrangement involving under-valuation and mis-declaration through multiple proxy/dummy firms stated to be owned and controlled by Zakir Khan, and proceeded to impose penalties upon various noticees. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, penalty of ₹5,00,00,000/- was imposed upon petitioner Sandeep Kumar, proprietor of M/s N. Brothers Overseas, under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act and a further penalty of ₹5,00,00,000/- was imposed upon him under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. Likewise, penalty of ₹5,00,00,000/- was imposed upon petitioner Sanjay Kumar, proprietor of M/s Sanjay International, under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act and a further penalty of ₹5,00,00,000/- was imp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINitin Wasudeo Sambre, Ajay Digpaul, JJSandeep Kumar – AppellantVersusPrincipal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) – RespondentW.P.(C) 4502/2026 | W.P.(C) 4504/2026

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Ajay Digpaul, JJ
Sandeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) – Respondent
W.P.(C) 4502/2026 | W.P.(C) 4504/2026