$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 18.08.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 02.09.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 02.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010334532026 + W.P.(C) 10387/2026 and CM APPL. 48073/2026 JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gauhar Mirza, Mr.

Syamantak Sen, Mr. Kaveesh Nair, Mr. Jeetendra Vishwakarma & Mr. Tanay Khanna, Advs.

versus THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR CARGO COMPLEX IMPORT & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Apurv Yadav and Mr.

Naman Choula, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Petitioner, Jaiprakash Associates Limited, seeking quashing of Order-in-Original No.23/2026-27/ACC Import/2789 dated 02.06.2026 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), New Delhi. Vide the Impugned Order, the Respondent-Authority has confirmed differential customs duty of Rs.5,89,366/- under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as the „Customs Act‟], ordered recovery of interest under Section 28AA thereof and imposed a penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act. The demand arises out of the import of Digital and Network Video Recorders by the Petitioner vide Bill of Entry No.7856824 dated 15.09.2023.

2. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is not with the classification of the imported goods or the quantum of differential duty in isolation, but with the continuation and culmination of the customs proceedings after commencement and completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [hereinafter referred to as „CIRP‟] of the Petitioner. The Petitioner contends that the underlying liability relates to a transaction which admittedly preceded the Insolvency Commencement Date, and that the Customs Department did not submit any claim before the Resolution Professional [hereinafter referred to as „RP‟] during the CIRP. According to the Petitioner, upon approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as the „IBC‟], such unfiled pre-CIRP claims stood extinguished and could not thereafter form the subject matter of adjudication or recovery proceedings.

3. The Respondents, on the other hand, have proceeded on the basis that the Customs liability in question was never shown to have been placed before or dealt with by the Resolution Professional, the Committee of Creditors [hereinafter referred to as „CoC‟] or the National Company Law Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the „NCLT‟]. It is the reasoning of the Adjudicating Authority that mere reliance upon the NCLT Order approving the Resolution Plan was insufficient, particularly when the Petitioner had not produced material establishing that the subject customs liability formed part of the claims considered under the Resolution Plan. The Respondent- Authority has further taken note of the fact that the pendency of the CIRP was brought to its notice only at the stage of the final personal hearing.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. The facts, insofar as relevant for adjudication of the present controversy, may briefly be noticed.

5. On 15.09.2023, the Petitioner imported Digital and Network Video Recorders, described as AVASYS New Digital Video Recording System with Encoder, at a combined assessable value of Rs.45,40,569/- vide Bill of Entry No.7856824. The goods were classified under CTH 85219090 and the Petitioner availed Basic Customs Duty at the rate of 10% under Serial No.499A of CBIC Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017. The import transaction was thus effected prior to commencement of the CIRP.

6. On 03.06.2024, the NCLT, Allahabad Bench, admitted Company Petition (IB) No.330/ALD/2018, filed by ICICI Bank Limited under Section 7 of