SENTEC INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18th February, 2025 + W.P.(C) 868/2025 SENTEC INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr. Yash Gaiha, Mr. Ranesh Singh Mankotia & Mr. Naman Mehta, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Atul Tripathi, SSC with Mr. Shubham Mishra, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner- Sentec India Company Private Limited has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the refund of ₹10,72,986/- which was deposited with the Customs Department as Extra Duty Deposit (hereinafter ‘EDD’). 3. The brief background is that the Petitioner had imported certain goods from Taiwan between 2014 and 2017. The Respondent/Department had suspected undervaluation of said goods and referred the same to the Special Valuation Branch, Delhi (hereinafter ‘SVB’). 4. While those proceedings were pending, the goods in question were cleared on a provisional assessment basis on payment of EDD of 1% or 5% in terms of Circular 05/2016-Customs dated 9th February, 2016 read with Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 868/2025 Page 1 of 11 By:RAHUL Signing Date:27.02.2025 18:00 Circular No. 11/2001-Customs dated 23rd February, 2001 and Circular No. 1/1998-Customs dated 01st January, 1998. According to the Petitioner, it had deposited ₹10,72,986/- in the form of EDD at that stage to facilitate the release of the goods. 5. SVB had commenced an investigation in respect of the said imports based on the allegation that the exporter (‘Sentec E & E Co. Ltd, Taiwan) and Importer (Petitioner) were related, and the