The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction by setting aside the show cause notice as being without authority of law and consequently set aside the Order-in-Original No. 5212O25-26lCommr/NS- I/CAC/JNCH dt 21 .04.2025 ,onfirming the Customs duty demand Rs.1 ,39,05,938/- along with interest, fine and penalties, as being rllegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation, violative of principles of natural justice lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ,:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Ccurt may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including recovery of the: disputed demand of duty, interest, fine and penatty pursuant to the impugnec r)rd er-in-Original No. 5212O25-26lCommrlNS-I/CAC/JNCH dt 21 .O4.2025 for the periods April, 2019 to September, 2022 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. YAMMANURU SlRl REDD'/ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (sENroR STANDTNG COUNSEL FOR CB|C) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO w. P.No.25519 OF 2025 ORDER (per Hon bla Sri Justice l'.Sam Koshy) Heard Ms. Y.Siri Reddy, Ieamed counsel lor thc petitioncr and Mr. Dorninic Fernandes, leamed Senior Standing Counsel fbr the CBIC lbr respondent No. l. Perused the record' l'he instant is a writ petition which has been flled assailing l. the order-in-original dated 21.04.2025 passed by the tlrst respondent, located in Maharashtra. ). The writ petition had primarity been filed on th'e ground that the impugned.order is one which has been passed bcyond the period of lirnitation prescribed under Section 28 of the Custorns Act. 1962 (tbr short 'the Act'). The impugned order has also bcen chattenged on the ground that the finding arrived at by thc first lespondent is per sc contrary to the evidence available on record and also rvithout considering the test report which was obtained by the depar-trnent aftcr collecting the samples by themselves' 2 -

1. [.carned counsel for the petitioner I t) support of her contention so far as the present writ Cour invoking the wnt .iurisdiction is concemed rclied upon the LarqL:r Bench decision of the Di:lhi High Court irr the case of S'IERLING AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. UNION OI' INDIAT and the petitioncr has also relied upon a rccent deci: ion of the Bombay Irligh Court in thc case ol'I'}l INDUS'I'RIES I,IMITED vs. THE UNION OF INDIA.

5. As legards the aspcct o1'limitation is concerned, it has been pointed out by thc learncd Standing Counsel lbr the deparlment that in f'act the irnpugned order itself speaks as to the aspect of limitation 1rom paragraph i onwards and also the discussion given in paragraph .l would shoiv that the authoriti:s; have given their explanation that the period ol limitation presc"ibed under Section 28 of thc ,A.ct being availed. Furlher, what is also reflected frorn the procecdings is that oncc when the authoriti,.s hare provided for an cxplanation so lar as the limitation pcriod b,rir-rg extended under ' 2012(6) tNll 76 I)clhi Ilich ( oLLrr - l-B - 2015(.+) l Nll l8l Ihurbav Ilish C oLrrt 3 Section 28 is concerned, whether the said finding is proper, legal and justified or not, is a rrlatter which would require fact finding and which cannot be invoked by the High Court under the writ jurisdiction. The statutory appellate authority provided under Section 129(A) ol the Act has been empowered to look into these aspects. Even thc aspect oi whether the samples collected by the department and which has been got tested lrom the laboratory have been duly considered by the first respondent or not, is again a matter of lact tinding lor rvhich again the appellate body is the bcst fbrum which can deal rvith the said issue, not this High Court in the course of invoking thc powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India

6. So t-ar as the reliance given to the Bombay High Court judgment is concerned. we find that the said petition which came up flor dccision bclore the Bornbay l-{igh Court had a checkered history and on an earlier occasion itself the matter had travelled to the appcllate authority and has also travelled to the CESI'AT and there was an order of remand and finally, the impugned order came which ra.'as put to challenge belore the High'Court, unlike'm t'he 4 instant case where at the first instancc they subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the llrst rcspondent, entercd appcarance belore the authorities concemed, submitted their writtcn -r.rbrrissions and have also represented through their representative in the course of personal hearing being af'forded

7. Another aspect which needs to be apprecirrtr:d is that the first responrlent is one forum which is located Il Maharashtra and the writ petition is being lrlcd in the Statc t,l' lelangana 'fhe petitioner having subjectcd thcmselves to thc jrrrisdiction of the first respondent located in Maharashtra cannot now be permitted to arail the writ rcmedy before a altoccrher difterent jurisdictional High Court in the course of challcr'lring an order passed by the officer in Mahalashtr.l, cven thoush :;ome part of cause ol action rnay have arisen within the territori -'s of the High Court for thc State ol"I'elansana. Ihese are alI Lrr.runds rvhich ought to had been raised by the petitioner in thc coLr .se of'filing of an appeal bcfbrc thc appellate ar-rthority concerrtr.d ancl which would have been duly considcrcd by the appcllale aurh()rit),. 5

8. In view of the sarne. we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this juncture. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, disrnissed, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to avail such other legal recourse available uncler the statutes. Subject to the petitioner approaching the appe llate authority within 15 days, the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the instant writ petition from the date of filing till the disposal today, may be excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation aspect. Therc shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, rniscellaneous petilions pending, if any, shall stand closed I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-A. JAYASREE S ISTAN T REGISTR ECTION OFFICER 2 3 4 1 The Commissioner of Customs, (NS-l)' Jawahar Nehru Customs House' C"itraf""O Atluaication Cell, Nhava Sheva, Dist-Raigad, Maharashtra-40g 707 i-he Secretary, Union of lndia, (Revenuel North Block, New Delhi- 110001 on" bC to S'Cr. vnrulrvANURU slRl REDDY, Advocate [oPU-cf^ ^. .-.^-. o;; ca io sni ootr,ttt tlc FERNANDES (sENloR STANDING couNSEL FOR CB|C) [OPUC] one Cc to'sht. ru riuulnxcA RAo, soLIClroR GENERAL oF INDIA loPUCl Two CD Copies q 6 BM LS HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 ORDER WP.No.25519 of 2025 SEf?() ,( s o. .) C - 0ilg1 U ]W /i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 946