Anuj jain Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court delivered an order in the matter of Anuj Jain vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), addressing the petitioner’s challenge to an Order-in-Original dated 24 April 2020 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The case arose from the import of two consignments in containers numbered TGHU 9546915 and OOLU 8433339.
During inspection, the first container was found to contain cigarettes, although it had been declared as carrying induction cookers. Despite this discrepancy, the container was cleared through customs. The second container, which had initially been cleared, was later found at a warehouse and confiscated during a town seizure. The Customs authorities subsequently demanded duty from the petitioner.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) recorded statements from multiple individuals, including Anuj Jain, which revealed that he had introduced the proprietor of M/s Nikhaar Associates, the importer, to a Customs handling agent and handed over documents relating to the consignments. The petitioner was also one of the addressees of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 16 August 2013.
In response, the petitioner filed a reply to the SCN. The Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs passed the Order-in-Original on 24 April 2020, which required pre-deposit of duties, interest, and penalties for filing an appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The order specified that cases with amounts up to Rs. 5,00,000 required a Rs. 1,000 pre-deposit, while cases between Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 50,00,000 required Rs. 5,000.
The petitioner challenged the order before CESTAT, which rejected the appeal due to non-payment of the requisite pre-deposit. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the penalty portion had been pre-deposited (7.5%), the duty demanded on the second container—Rs. 1,98,68,395.5—was substantial and could not be deposited in full. She argued that both containers should be treated similarly and requested permission to pursue the appeal without full pre-deposit.
The counsel for the respondent argued that the first container was confiscated at the port, whereas the second container had been cleared and later seized at a warehouse. Therefore, differential treatment was warranted, and the duty demand was valid.
The key issue before the High Court was whether the duty demand on the second container was valid and whether the appeal could proceed despite partial pre-deposit. The Court observed that the validity of the duty demand was a matter to be adjudicated by CESTAT on merits, but the appeal had not been heard due to lack of pre-deposit.
Considering the facts, including the partial pre-deposit already made, the Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the required pre-deposit amounting to Rs. 7,45,646 in addition to the amount already paid. The Court directed that upon such deposit, CESTAT should hear the appeal on merits. The case was listed before CESTAT on 6 October 2025.
The High Court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties remained open, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
The judgment aligns with established principles allowing appeals to proceed on merits even when full pre-deposit cannot be made, provided a reasonable portion is deposited, as seen in precedents such as Commissioner of Customs vs Sushil Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. (2017), where the Court emphasized balancing duty enforcement with procedural fairness in allowing appeals before CESTAT.
In summary, the Delhi High Court’s order enables the petitioner to pursue the customs appeal regarding the second container, ensures the appeal is heard on merits, and allows for a partial pre-deposit to facilitate access to CESTAT, leaving the substantive determination of duty liability to the appellate forum.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
