Neeraj Bhanupratap Singh Vs Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export) (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court, in the case of Neeraj Bhanupratap Singh vs. Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export), directed the petitioner to pursue his appeal before the appropriate appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals). While doing so, the court allowed the petitioner to adjust a pre-deposit amount of over ₹2 crores already paid during the investigation. The petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged an order imposing penalties and demands against the petitioner related to an alleged customs duty drawback fraud.
The case originated from a show-cause notice dated March 8, 2024, issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). According to the notice, the petitioner, Neeraj Bhanupratap Singh, was alleged to be operating a syndicate that perpetrated duty drawback and IGST refund fraud. The syndicate allegedly controlled 56 entities through forged KYC documents and used multiple Import-Export Codes (IECs) to export highly overvalued goods. The purpose of this scheme was to unlawfully claim duty drawback and IGST refunds. The goods were reportedly procured from the black market, and fake invoices were created to inflate their value.
The investigation ultimately focused on 36 of the 56 entities, which were determined to be under the petitioner’s control. The penalties imposed on the petitioner amounted to ₹1,34,96,000. During the High Court proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the Adjudicating Authority erred in holding the petitioner as a “beneficial owner” and thus an “exporter” under Section 2(20) of the Customs Act, 1962. This argument was based on the fact that the amendment adding the term “beneficial owner” to the definition of “exporter” came into effect on March 31, 2017, and thus, according to the petitioner, could not be applied retroactively.
